No Evidence against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or the Use of Registered Intermediaries for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017)
Saved in:
| Title: | No Evidence against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or the Use of Registered Intermediaries for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017) |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Dando, Coral J., Ormerod, Thomas C., Cooper, Penny, Marchant, Ruth, Mattison, Michelle, Milne, Rebecca, Bull, Ray |
| Source: | Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Jul 2018 48(7):2593-2596. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 4 |
| Publication Date: | 2018 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Opinion Papers |
| Descriptors: | Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Children, Interviews, Accuracy, Memory, Court Litigation, Justice, Identification |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10803-018-3479-z |
| ISSN: | 0162-3257 |
| Abstract: | Recently, Henry et al. ("J Autism Dev Disord" 8:2348-2362, 2017) found no evidence for the use of Verbal Labels, Sketch Reinstatement of Context and Registered Intermediaries by forensic practitioners when interviewing children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We consider their claims, noting the limited ecological validity of the experimental paradigm, the impacts of repeated interviewing where retrieval support is not provided at first retrieval, question the interviewer/intermediary training and their population relevant experience, and comment on the suppression of population variances. We submit that rejecting these techniques on the basis of this study is completely unwarranted and potentially damaging, particularly if used in legal proceedings to undermine the value of testimony from children with ASD, who continually struggle to gain access to justice. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 31 |
| Entry Date: | 2018 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1182067 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEC_YsMHbUZXV-DO1CrYLpYAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPsxMZb1oKqAGNyRqAIBEICBmkON8nZAZvB-hxpXlrZREG8PfSKVXc1xRvE2sX6xC12KyFqqwDFSQrXAROx-3Bv4OzVVly84c8Qon0udXebhgax-PrllwVtVVmE3fcByPJrAXLRehfm2VAztEtcOYicUC2KZrZmtZ-BM1yM6daPcHKOZY_Kg1lk1WnioP0TAEcERs_sxb8tEXKFZ9Ia-opqajz8k0nd6HPgjaLo= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0130102681;aut01jul.18;2018Jun13.09:18;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0130102681-1">No Evidence Against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or the Use of Registered Intermediaries for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017) </title> <p>Recently, Henry et al. (J Autism Dev Disord 8:2348-2362, &lt;xref&gt;2017&lt;/xref&gt;) found no evidence for the use of Verbal Labels, Sketch Reinstatement of Context and Registered Intermediaries by forensic practitioners when interviewing children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We consider their claims, noting the limited ecological validity of the experimental paradigm, the impacts of repeated interviewing where retrieval support is not provided at first retrieval, question the interviewer/intermediary training and their population relevant experience, and comment on the suppression of population variances. We submit that rejecting these techniques on the basis of this study is completely unwarranted and potentially damaging, particularly if used in legal proceedings to undermine the value of testimony from children with ASD, who continually struggle to gain access to justice.</p> <p>Witnesses and victims; Sketch Reinstatement of Context; Verbal Labels; Registered Intermediaries; Investigative interview</p> <p>Henry et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>] ) have recently reported finding of no evidence for the use of Verbal Labels, Sketch Reinstatement of Context (Sketch-RC) and Registered Intermediaries for interviewing children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We submit that rejecting these techniques solely on the basis of this study is unwarranted and potentially extremely damaging to current practice, future research development, and criminal justice processes, particularly if used in legal settings to undermine the value of testimony from children with ASD. Assertions that research mirrors real life must be clearly evidenced, otherwise there is a serious risk that professionals will ‘seize and freeze’ on results that do not paint a complete picture. Our concerns centre on the paradigm adopted for the study and its clear mismatch with practice and procedure, the impact of the chosen paradigm on memorial performance, and the suppression of population variances. We focus on a number of key paradigm issues, which diverge in significant and damaging ways from the environment faced by practitioners.1 [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]</p> <p>The paradigm concerned two different mock crime events. Children experienced one event, live or on a video and later that day were interviewed with no retrieval support. One week later children were interviewed for a second time using one of the aforementioned interview techniques, or a ‘best practice’ interview. Clearly, this research involves repeated interviewing, which is only acknowledged in passing, and no connections are made with the extensive literature on repeated interviewing of children. This paradigm also generates theoretical concerns over the encoding environment and instructions (Leclercq et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>] ; Naveh-Benjamin et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>] ), the stimulus event (Pipe et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>] ), and presentation modality (Pansky et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>] ) all of which are known to affect retrieval performance. We question the appropriateness of using such a mix of presentation formats and events. Given that difficulties with social interaction are a hallmark characteristic of ASD (Baron-Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>] ), video presentations offer a number of positive features over a live event—they are predictable, consistent, and create fewer social demands. Children with ASD are known to be more attentive to material when accessed via a computer, and computer-based interventions can significantly improve cognition (e.g., Golan et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>] ). The 30% of children with ASD and 83% of typically developing (TD) children who saw the live event had a distinctly different encoding experience, and it is possible that children with ASD may have not have attended to the live event to the same extent as the video.</p> <p>A protocol for the first interview is not provided, but a footnote reveals that it comprised a free account, followed by a series of probing, specific closed questions (described as open questions). Whether the recommended instructions were provided (i.e., not to guess; tell everything; say if you do not know the answer; tell if you do not understand the question) is unknown, yet all can ameliorate episodic performance at first, and subsequent retrievals. (e.g., Lyon et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>] ; Memon et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>] ). The absence of a significant difference in episodic performance at first interview as a function of presentation (live or video) or scenario (keys or phone) does not provide compelling grounds for combining the encoding conditions and scenario types. Basic, broad-brush tests of null effects for overall memory performance, reported as footnotes, do not to allay our concerns. Participant groups were not separated (TD; ASD), the population variances are high, but these were sometimes suppressed using log transformations, sometimes not, which has implications for interpreting the results, and significant findings with small effect sizes are ignored, dismissed as negligible, which is problematic where null effects are sought, as happened here.</p> <p>A first interview prior to a full achieving best evidence (ABE) interview does not mirror investigative practice, especially when children with ASD are passive witnesses to minor incidents (Ministry of Justice [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>] ). ABE is clear that only on some occasions initial questioning may be necessary, and then only a ‘very brief’ account should be collected. A more detailed account should not be pursued (p. 10). Yet, in this study the first interview is akin to a structured interview typically used for mock eyewitness research (see Milne and Bull [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>] ). In instances where children with a diagnosis of ASD are involved, a first interview of this nature would be highly unusual, indeed inappropriate, particularly in light of the growing body of evidence showing that interviewing techniques developed for use with typically developing witnesses are ineffective or inappropriate for individuals with a diagnosis of ASD unless specifically tailored for that purpose.</p> <p>Children with ASD struggle when asked to freely recall information without support because episodic memory and free recall performance are typically reduced (Bowler et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>] ), as is memory for person-related, and personally experienced events (Boucher and Bowler [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>] ). Information is bound differently in people with ASD (Gaigg et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>] ), and they typically fail to utilise categorical and relational features of information to aid recall (Gaigg et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>] ). Deficits in source monitoring abilities are also apparent, as are impairments in working memory and verbal information processing (Bowler et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>] ; Hala et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>] ). Our greatest concern here is that, by using a first interview prior to interviews with the techniques under investigation, the researchers effectively undermined the basis on which the techniques are designed to operate, as we explain below.</p> <p>Sketch-RC and Verbal Labels techniques were devised to support episodic recall at first retrieval (Dando [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref19">9</reflink>] ; Dando et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>] ; Mattison et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref21">22</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>] ). Likewise, the assistance of a Registered Intermediary (RI) would typically be requested immediately an interviewee is eligible for assistance under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. This did not occur for the first interview, and so the potential benefits of the of Sketch-RC, Verbal Labels and RIs are reduced because were not introduced until the second interview, which interferes with the cognition and social facets of social interaction that techniques for supporting vulnerable witnesses are designed to address, rendering any follow-on support less effective. It is rare for interviewers or RIs to know in detail about the alleged event, and interviewing so many children about the same event is unheard of in practice. The risks of contamination and confirmation bias are well documented (e.g., Loftus [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>] ), particularly with children (see Lamb et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>] ). There is no information about how these risks were planned for or mitigated. Also, the autism specialism and experience of the two intermediaries who took part in this study is not provided, likewise the interviewers. Interviewer performance is ignored, per se. Yet, the demands of repeat interviewing on interviewer behaviour are well documented, as are the observed problems and the effect of familiarity on children’s memory, which can increase across repeated interviews because this exacerbates the problem (e.g., Bruck et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>] ; Powell et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>] ). For example, children can be less accurate in response to repeated closed and probing questions, and typically do not report original information in subsequent interviews.</p> <p>There is no reference to the RI peer reviewed academic literature or to the RI Procedural Guidance Manual. A RI scheme operates in Northern Ireland, England and Wales (Cooper and Wurtzel [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>] ; Cooper and Allely [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>] ) and a pilot scheme is in place in New South Wales, Australia, and their use is proposed for other Australian states and New Zealand. Prior to this, communication assistance had been provided to interviewers for many years (e.g. Marchant and Page [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>] ). The RI procedural manual (Cooper and Wurtzel [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>] ) is clear-intermediaries should (i) be suitably qualified if they assess children with ASD, (ii) keep full records, including of their assessment of each child, (iii) the interviewer should be present during each intermediary assessment and initial interview, and (iv) assessments would not be limited to one occasion. It is not clear the extent to which procedural guidance was followed, if at all.</p> <p>Finally, we question the transformation of dependent variable data for applied research of this nature, and we are particularly concerned that only some of the variables (e.g., errors and proportion correct) have been transformed for both the null effects and regression analyses. Transforming data can result in researchers addressing an alternative contextual and empirical question, and dismissing techniques resulting from incorrect theoretical and practical conclusions (see Lee and Nelder [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>] ; Lo and Andrews [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>] ; Speelman and McGann [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>] ). Transforming data is akin to ‘removing’ autism and its associated variability from the sample, which does not speak to the applied context the authors emphasise—forensic professionals cannot statistically alter memory performance.</p> <p>Therefore, it is our contention that the research reported by Henry et al. fails to test the validity of Registered Intermediaries, Sketch-RC, or Verbal Labels for supporting children with ASD in real world forensic settings for four main reasons. First, their experimental paradigm is not ecologically valid. Second, the use of an initial interview reduces the variance available at a subsequent interview and interferes with the cognition and social facets of social interaction that techniques for supporting vulnerable witnesses are designed to address, rendering any follow-on support less effective. Third, the interviewers do not appear to have the specialist training required for conducting ABE interviews, let alone interviews with children with ASD. The expertise/experience for children with ASD of the intermediaries used is unclear. Fourth, by transforming data the variance associated with ASD is hidden, reducing the likelihood of finding effects of relevance to practitioners. We urge extreme caution when interpreting Henry et al.’s results for practice. If their findings remain unchallenged, there is a risk that children with ASD will be further disadvantaged.</p> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <hd id="AN0130102681-2">Electronic supplementary material</hd> <p>The online version of this article (10.1007/s10803-018-3479-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.</p> <hd id="AN0130102681-3">References</hd> <hd id="AN0130102681-4">Citations</hd> <p>1 Baron-Cohen S, Campbell R, Karmiloff-Smith A, Grant J, Walker J, Are children with autism blind to the mentalistic significance of the eyes?, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1995, 13, 379, 398, 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1995.tb00687.x</p> <ulist> <item>2 Boucher J, Bowler DM, Memory in autism, 2008, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press</item> <item>3 Bowler DM, Gaigg S, Lind S, Roth I, Rezaie P, Memory in autism: Binding, self, and brain, Researching the autism spectrum disorder: Contemporary perspectives, 2011, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press</item> <item>4 Bowler DM, Gardiner JM, Berthollier N, Source memory in adolescents and adults with Asperger syndrome, Journal of Autism &amp; Developmental Disorders, 2004, 34, 533, 542, 10.1007/s10803-004-2548-7</item> <item>5 Bruck M, Ceci SJ, Hembrooke H, The nature of children’s true and false narratives, Developmental Review, 2002, 22, 520, 554, 10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00006-0</item> <item>6 Cooper P, Allely CS, You can’t judge a book by its cover: Evolving professional responsibilities, liabilities and ‘judgecraft’when a party has Asperger’s Syndrome, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 2017, 68, 35, 58</item> <item>7 Cooper P, Wurtzel D, Better the second time around? Department of Justice Registered Intermediaries Schemes and lessons from England and Wales, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 2014, 65, 39, 61</item> <item>8 Cooper P, Wurtzel D, Registered intermediary procedural guidance manual, 2015, London, Ministry of Justice</item> <item>9 Dando, C. J. (2013). Drawing to remember: External support of older adults’ eyewitness performance. PLoS ONE, 8, e69937. 10.1371/journal.pone.0069937.</item> <item>10 Dando CJ, Wilcock R, Milne R, The cognitive interview: The efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009, 23, 138, 147, 10.1002/acp.1451</item> <item>11 Gaigg SB, Gardiner JM, Bowler DM, Free recall in autism spectrum disorder: The role of relational and item-specific encoding, Neuropsychologia, 2008, 46, 983, 992, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.11.0112265793</item> <item>12 Golan O, LaCava PG, Baron-Cohen S, Gabriels RL, Hill DE, Assistive technology as an aid in reducing social impairments in autism, Growing up with autism: Working with school-age children and adolescents, 2007, New York, The Guilford Press, 124, 142</item> <item>13 Hala S, Rasmussen C, Henderson AM, Three types of source monitoring by children with and without autism: The role of executive function, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2005, 35, 75, 89, 10.1007/s10803-004-1036-4</item> <item>14 Henry LA, Crane L, Nash G, Hobson Z, Kirke-Smith M, Wilcock R, Verbal, visual, and intermediary support for child witnesses with autism during investigative interviews, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2017, 8, 2348, 2362, 10.1007/s10803-017-3142-0</item> <item>15 Lamb ME, Rooy DJ, Malloy LC, Katz C, Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice, 2011, Hoboken, Wiley</item> <item>16 Leclercq V, Dantec CC, Seitz AR, Encoding of episodic information through fast task-irrelevant perceptual learning, Vision Research, 2014, 99, 5, 11, 10.1016/j.visres.2013.09.006</item> <item>17 Lee Y, Nelder JA, Hierarchical generalized linear models, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 1996, 58, 619, 678</item> <item>18 Lo S, Andrews S, To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data, Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6, 1171, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.011714528092</item> <item>19 Loftus, E. F. (2003). Make-believe memories., American Psychologist, 58(<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>), 867-871.</item> <item>20 Lyon TD, Malloy LC, Quas JA, Talwar VA, Coaching, truth induction, &amp; young maltreated children’s false allegations and false denials, Child Development, 2008, 79, 914, 929, 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01167.x2856485</item> <item>21 Marchant R, Page M, Westcott H, Jones D, The memorandum and disabled children, Perspectives on the memorandum, 1997, London, Arena, 67, 79</item> <item>22 Mattison M, Dando CJ, Ormerod TC, Drawing to remember: Supporting child witnesses &amp; victims with autistic spectrum disorder to give ‘Best Evidence’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2015, 15, 2</item> <item>23 Mattison M, Dando CJ, Ormerod TC, Drawing the answers: How sketch reinstatement supports free and probed recall by child witnesses with ASD, Autism, 2016</item> <item>24 Memon A, Wark L, Bull R, Koehnken G, Isolating the effects of the cognitive interview techniques, British Journal of Psychology, 1997, 88, 179, 197, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02629.x</item> <item>25 Milne R, Bull R, Kebbell MR, Davies GM, Interviewing victims of crime, including children and people with intellectual disabilities, Practical psychology for forensic investigations and prosecutions, 2006, Hoboken, Wiley, 7, 24</item> <item>26 Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures, 2011, London, Ministry of Justice</item> <item>27 Naveh-Benjamin M, Guez J, Hara Y, Brubaker MS, Lowenschuss-Erlich I, The effects of divided attention on encoding processes under incidental and intentional learning instructions, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2014, 67, 1682, 1696, 10.1080/17470218.2013.867517</item> <item>28 Pansky A, Koriat A, Goldsmith M, Brewer N, Williams KD, Eyewitness recall and testimony, Psychology and law: An empirical perspective, 2005, New York, The Guilford Press, 93, 150</item> <item>29 Pipe ME, Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Recent research on children’s testimony about experienced and witnessed events, Developmental Review, 2004, 24, 440, 468, 10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.006</item> <item>30 Powell MB, Jones CH, Campbell C, A comparison of preschoolers’ recall of experienced versus non-experienced events across multiple interviews, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2003, 17, 935, 952, 10.1002/acp.932</item> <item>31 Speelman CP, McGann M, How mean is the mean?, Frontiers in Psychology, 2013, 4, 451, 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.004513719041</item> <ref id="AN0130102681-5"> <title>Footnotes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Please see Additional Materials for further details and an extensive reference list. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> </ulist> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 54 KB)</p> <aug> <p>By Coral J. Dando; Thomas C. Ormerod; Penny Cooper; Ruth Marchant; Michelle Mattison; Rebecca Milne and Ray Bull</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib9" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib5" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib7" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib6" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib8" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref33"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1182067 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: No Evidence against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or the Use of Registered Intermediaries for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017) – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dando%2C+Coral+J%2E%22">Dando, Coral J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ormerod%2C+Thomas+C%2E%22">Ormerod, Thomas C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cooper%2C+Penny%22">Cooper, Penny</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marchant%2C+Ruth%22">Marchant, Ruth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mattison%2C+Michelle%22">Mattison, Michelle</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Milne%2C+Rebecca%22">Milne, Rebecca</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bull%2C+Ray%22">Bull, Ray</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Autism+and+Developmental+Disorders%22"><i>Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders</i></searchLink>. Jul 2018 48(7):2593-2596. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 4 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Opinion Papers – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism%22">Autism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pervasive+Developmental+Disorders%22">Pervasive Developmental Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Court+Litigation%22">Court Litigation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Justice%22">Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Identification%22">Identification</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10803-018-3479-z – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0162-3257 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Recently, Henry et al. ("J Autism Dev Disord" 8:2348-2362, 2017) found no evidence for the use of Verbal Labels, Sketch Reinstatement of Context and Registered Intermediaries by forensic practitioners when interviewing children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We consider their claims, noting the limited ecological validity of the experimental paradigm, the impacts of repeated interviewing where retrieval support is not provided at first retrieval, question the interviewer/intermediary training and their population relevant experience, and comment on the suppression of population variances. We submit that rejecting these techniques on the basis of this study is completely unwarranted and potentially damaging, particularly if used in legal proceedings to undermine the value of testimony from children with ASD, who continually struggle to gain access to justice. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Ref Label: Number of References Group: RefInfo Data: 31 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1182067 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1182067 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10803-018-3479-z Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 4 StartPage: 2593 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Autism Type: general – SubjectFull: Pervasive Developmental Disorders Type: general – SubjectFull: Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Interviews Type: general – SubjectFull: Accuracy Type: general – SubjectFull: Memory Type: general – SubjectFull: Court Litigation Type: general – SubjectFull: Justice Type: general – SubjectFull: Identification Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: No Evidence against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or the Use of Registered Intermediaries for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017) Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dando, Coral J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ormerod, Thomas C. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Cooper, Penny – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Marchant, Ruth – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mattison, Michelle – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Milne, Rebecca – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bull, Ray IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 07 Type: published Y: 2018 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0162-3257 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 48 – Type: issue Value: 7 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
