View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Repetition of Contaminating Question Types when Children and Youths with Intellectual Disabilities Are Interviewed

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Repetition of Contaminating Question Types when Children and Youths with Intellectual Disabilities Are Interviewed
Language: English
Authors: Cederborg, A.-C, Danielsson, H., La Rooy, D., Lamb, M. E.
Source: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. May 2009 53(5):440-449.
Availability: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2009
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Sexual Abuse, Mental Retardation, Foreign Countries, Interviews, Repetition, Questioning Techniques, Evaluation Methods, Victims of Crime, Responses, Reliability, Children, Adolescents, Young Adults
Geographic Terms: Sweden
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01160.x
ISSN: 0964-2633
Abstract: Background: The present study examined the effects of repeating questions in interviews investigating the possible sexual abuse of children and youths who had a variety of intellectual disabilities. We predicted that the repetition of option-posing and suggestive questions would lead the suspected victims to change their responses, making it difficult to understand what actually happened. Inconsistency can be a key factor when assessing the reliability of witnesses. Materials: Case files and transcripts of investigative interviews with 33 children and youths who had a variety of intellectual disabilities were obtained from prosecutors in Sweden. The interviews involved 25 females and 9 males whose chronological ages were between 5.4 and 23.7 years when interviewed (M = 13.2 years). Results: Six per cent of the questions were repeated at least once. The repetition of focused questions raised doubts about the reports because the interviewees changed their answers 40% of the time. Conclusions: Regardless of the witnesses' abilities, it is important to obtain reports that are as accurate and complete as possible in investigative interviews. Because this was a field study, we did not know which responses were accurate, but repetitions of potentially contaminating questions frequently led the interviewees to contradict their earlier answers. This means that the interviewers' behaviour diminished the usefulness of the witnesses' testimony.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 61
Entry Date: 2009
Accession Number: EJ835878
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGGANcMJD4vej8CqjMq22zXAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMv1aAtX_pgeRDI0pAIBEICBmhQcZZ5hPW6l7VE1riDxkq2ZTXfbZC92U8H4itAcrYQL4fLY5kVw68wglP9b5HwR1SDhUM9ifo0MuGv-WkAV4ZlS7doNuLTL6fPFT3txRHqpP9HnMLx3ay434jXeMrgkQQctj27DxloAEKV67Dl1lprcW1sclm6r12GcJT9s1Xu9jlsqDY2AMop2SVLmZotbwIhKIY7wAhbfes8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0037589893;eul01may.09;2019Jun04.10:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0037589893-1">Repetition of contaminating question types when children and youths with intellectual disabilities are interviewed. </title> <p>Background  The present study examined the effects of repeating questions in interviews investigating the possible sexual abuse of children and youths who had a variety of intellectual disabilities. We predicted that the repetition of option‐posing and suggestive questions would lead the suspected victims to change their responses, making it difficult to understand what actually happened. Inconsistency can be a key factor when assessing the reliability of witnesses. Materials  Case files and transcripts of investigative interviews with 33 children and youths who had a variety of intellectual disabilities were obtained from prosecutors in Sweden. The interviews involved 25 females and 9 males whose chronological ages were between 5.4 and 23.7 years when interviewed (M = 13.2 years). Results  Six per cent of the questions were repeated at least once. The repetition of focused questions raised doubts about the reports because the interviewees changed their answers 40% of the time. Conclusions  Regardless of the witnesses' abilities, it is important to obtain reports that are as accurate and complete as possible in investigative interviews. Because this was a field study, we did not know which responses were accurate, but repetitions of potentially contaminating questions frequently led the interviewees to contradict their earlier answers. This means that the interviewers' behaviour diminished the usefulness of the witnesses' testimony.</p> <p>Keywords: investigative interviews; learning disabilities; repeated focused questions; sexual abuse; inconsistent reports</p> <p>Children and youths with intellectual disabilities (CYIDs) are more likely than typically developing (TD) peers to become victims of abuse (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref1">57</reflink>]). Despite a paucity of research on the performance of CYIDs in investigative interviews, they are nonetheless viewed as less reliable informants than their normally developing peers ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]). It is thought that CYIDs have more limited memory skills and are more suggestible than normally developing peers ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]) so they may change their responses when questions are repeated across interviews ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]). Those who also have autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) may have special difficulty understanding questions about other peoples' knowledge and beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref6">60</reflink>]), and all CYIDs may face communicative barriers when recounting their experiences, increasing the risk that they may repeatedly be asked the same questions by investigators eager to learn more about the alleged incidents. No researchers have explored the performance of CYIDs when questions that are potentially contaminating are repeated within forensic interviews. Thus, this was the focus on the present study.</p> <p>The informativeness of CYIDs is generally comparable with that of mental age‐matched TD peers ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref7">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref11">45</reflink>]) but severity of disability is often influential as well. Children with mild intellectual disabilities report less information in response to open‐ended free‐recall questions but are as likely as TD of the same age to provide responses to these type of prompts ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>]) and to resist misleading questions ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref14">22</reflink>]). However, children with moderate disabilities provide less information than both TD peers and children with mild intellectual disabilities. They are also more suggestible although their responses to free recall questions tend to be accurate ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Little is known about the way children with ASDs perform as eyewitnesses but they may have problems describing their emotions and memories when being interviewed ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]). Verbal children with ASDs may be unable to complete answers when they are interrupted. They may be able to provide detailed information about concrete experiences yet be unable to answer even simple questions about the same event ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]). Their capacity to search memory is limited ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]) and they may lack the capacity to combine memories into coherent whole reports ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref20">59</reflink>]). They may be unable to abstract gist memories ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref21">31</reflink>]) and their ability to recall the source of their memories may also be impaired ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]). Because of their problems with receptive and pragmatic language, they may use words suggested by others as clues to what they have failed to understand ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>In sum, CYIDs (including those with ASDs) may have problems remembering the events in question, and may acquiesce to suggestions, have difficulty communicating their experiences, and thus be unable to provide coherent and detailed reports of their experiences ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]). When interviewing alleged witnesses who have a variety of learning disabilities, police officers should thus give priority to strategies that will help possible victims provide the most accurate and complete information they can ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]). We do not know, however, how often forensic interviewers ask repeated questions when the alleged victims may have difficulty describing their experiences.</p> <p>The limited research available suggests that many forensic interviews with TD children contain repeated questions ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref27">37</reflink>]) and that up to 20% of the questions posed in forensic interviews are repeated ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>] cited in [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref29">37</reflink>]). The effects of repeated questioning have been the subject of many experimental studies with TD children (for reviews see [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref31">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref32">42</reflink>]). Researchers have reported that children often change their responses to repeated questions, including yes/no questions (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref34">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref35">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref37">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]), and, because they change previously correct responses to incorrect responses, and vice versa, their reliability as informants is open to question. In real forensic interviews, inconsistent responses often follow repeated questions too ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref40">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref41">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref42">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children are believed to change their answers when questions are repeated for motivational/social reasons ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref45">25</reflink>]). When questions are repeated, for example, TD children may think that the interviewers were not satisfied with their previous answers and thus change their responses to please the interviewers ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref46">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref47">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref48">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref49">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref50">42</reflink>]). In legal settings, changing answers to direct questions is likely to detract severely from witness credibility especially when later answers contradict earlier ones ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref51">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref55">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref57">16</reflink>]) which may imply that such reports will be of less evidentiary use.</p> <p>Researchers have yet to study how CYIDs respond to repeated questions within investigative interviews, especially when they are asked option‐posing (OP) and suggestive questions that are known to be potential sources of contamination (see [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref58">40</reflink>], for a review). We thus wanted to explore the effects of repeating these types of questions in investigative interviews with children who may already have memory and communicative difficulties. Accordingly, the purpose of this exploratory study was to understand (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>) the extent to which CYIDs are asked repeated OP and suggestive questions; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>) their responses to these risky OP and suggestive repeated questions. We predicted that repeated OP and suggestive questions within their first investigative interviews may lead CYIDs to change their responses.</p> <p>A quantitative analysis was first performed to identify all the interviewers' OP and suggestive questions. Second, these repeated prompts were qualitatively examined. In the experimental literature, researchers typically repeat questions verbatim, but we expected that, in forensic contexts, many questions might not be 'identical' but rather be pragmatically (or logically) similar enough to be considered repeated questions. Third, we examined the responses to all repeated OP and suggestive questions.</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-2">Method</hd> <p>This study explored a sample of real‐life forensic interviews with CYIDs; there was no comparison group of interviews involving people who did not have such disabilities. We examined the first formal investigative interviews with 33 CYIDs. Because one woman made allegations about two different suspects in separate interviews, there were 34 interviews included in the sample. The sample was selected from an archive comprising 69 criminal cases in Sweden solely because these cases involved CYIDs [developmental disorders (DDs) and ASDs] and the interviews with police officers had been recorded. Prosecutors from all 39 Swedish districts were asked to send as much information as possible about all recent cases in which the alleged victims had any kind of learning disability. Disability is not systematically recorded in Swedish case files, so case selection for the larger project depended on the prosecutors' and police officers' memories and the total sample was therefore selective rather than representative.</p> <p>In order to gain insight into each witness's possible reporting capabilities, circumstances and experiences, we conducted an inductive review of all the documents (the transcribed interviews, documents from the police investigations and the court files) in each case. Information about the different participants' test results and capacities was seldom obtained formally during the investigation and the courts were often given this information third‐hand ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]). As a result, the sample we studied was both heterogeneous and described with inadequate precision. This means that this study involved children and youths with a diverse array of disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-3">The data</hd> <p>In Sweden, the accepted term for developmental difficulties is DD. In accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>]), three different groups are distinguished: mild DD (IQ of 50–55 to 70), moderate DD (IQ of 35–40 up to 55), and severe DD (IQ below 35–40). From the limited information available, we discerned that 23 of the 33 children were developmentally delayed; nine were assessed with mild DD (one youth was involved in two different cases) and 14 with unspecified degrees of DD. Four others were reported to have ASDs (two with Asperger syndrome). Seven had been diagnosed with DD (two mild and five unspecified) combined with ASDs (one Asperger).</p> <p>The interviews involved 25 females and 9 males whose chronological ages were between 5.3 and 19.1 years (M = 12.1 years) when the last incident of abuse was believed to have occurred, and they were between 5.4 and 23.7 years when subsequently interviewed (M = 13.2 years). Thirty‐two of the participants were thought to be exposed to abuse for the first time when their chronological ages were under 18 years. One case involved a girl older than 18 years of age described as having severe developmental delays. Because of the participants' intellectual disabilities and presumed memory limitations they have been referred to as children and youths throughout this manuscript.</p> <p>The mean delay between last incident of alleged abuse and the interview was 184.6 days with a variation of between 1 and 1865 days. Table 1 shows the types of crimes that the children and youths were interviewed about, their diagnoses and the relationship between suspects and interviewees.</p> <p>1 Summary of the participants' experiences, diagnoses and relationship to suspects in 33 cases (34 interviews)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Type of crime</bold></th><th><bold>Relation to perpetrator(s)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Diagnosis</td><td>Sexual abuse</td><td>Physical abuse</td><td>Relative</td><td>Immediate family</td><td>Familiar</td><td>Unfamiliar</td></tr><tr><td>Developmental disorder</td><td>23</td><td>1*</td><td>1</td><td>8†</td><td>9</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Developmental disorder/autism spectrum disorder</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td /><td>3</td><td>4</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Autism spectrum disorder</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td /><td>3</td><td /><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>31</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 There were 33 witnesses and 34 interviewers.</p> <ulist> <item>2 *  One victim reported both sexual and physical abuse.</item> <item>3 †   One victim mentioned two immediate family members as perpetrators and so was interviewed twice.</item> </ulist> <p>Most of the children and youths were suspected victims of sexual abuse. Most of the suspected perpetrators were well known or familiar to the children and youths.</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-4">Quantitative analysis</hd> <p>The interviews were first transcribed from video recordings and checked to ensure their completeness and accuracy. A coder then reviewed the transcripts and identified each interviewer utterance that was OP or suggestive, using the categories developed by [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref63">39</reflink>]) and [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref64">41</reflink>]). For the purpose of these ratings, we did not distinguish between questions and statements.</p> <p>Option‐posing utterances were those that focused the witness's attention on details or aspects of the alleged incident that the witness has not previously mentioned, asking the witness to affirm, negate, or select an investigator‐given option using recognition memory processes. This did not imply that a particular response was expected. For example, interviewers might ask 'Were the clothes red or green?' or 'Was the shirt red?'.</p> <p>Suggestive utterances were stated in such a way that the interviewer strongly communicated what response was expected (e.g. 'He forced you to do that, didn't he?') or they assumed details that had not been revealed by the witness (e.g. Witness: 'We laid on the sofa.' Interviewer: 'He laid on you or you laid on him?').</p> <p>In this paper, OP and suggestive prompts are together called 'focused prompts'. One researcher coded all 34 interviews and a second researcher independently coded 10 of these interviews. Inter–rater reliability was 95%. Differences were resolved through discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-5">Qualitative analysis</hd> <p>The quality of the repeated OP and suggestive prompts was then explored. We categorised all repetitions of the focused questions regardless of how many times they were repeated in the same interview. Repetitions were categorised as either exact repetitions (e.g. first and second time repeated: 'Was it the sofa you laid on?') or similar repetitions (repetition with different words or different word order, e.g. first time 'You laid on the sofa, didn't you?' and second time 'Did you lie on the sofa?').</p> <p>All substantial event information elicited using OP and suggestive prompts was categorised using three different combined response categories (agreement, disagreement and other):</p> <p>Agreement: The child accepted an option proposed or detail suggested by the investigator and may have elaborated upon it.Disagreement: The child did not accept an option proposed or detail suggested by the investigator and may have proposed an alternative option.Other: The child gave no answer or responded 'I don't know' or 'I don't remember'.</p> <p>The categorization of prompts and responses was conducted by two coders, and inter–rater reliability was 93%. Differences were resolved through discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-6">Ethical considerations</hd> <p>All case material was given to the first author by the prosecutors and police officers in accordance with the provisions of Sweden's Official Secrets Act. At the time of data collection, Swedish researchers were not required to have their projects reviewed by human subjects' protection committees, but the present project was reviewed and approved by the official at Linköping University, Sweden, responsible for monitoring research being conducted by University staff. This official ensured that the project was designed and implemented in accordance with the Helsinki declaration (1975) regarding research on humans.</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-7">Results</hd> <p>In total, 49% (2858) of the 5764 questions asked in the substantial phase were focused prompts (32% option posing and 17% suggestive) and 29 (85%) of the 34 interviews contained at least one repeated question. In total, 260 (9%) of the 2858 focused questions (224 OP and 36 suggestive prompts) were repetitions but 86 out of the 260 questions were repeated more than once (up to seven times), with an average of 1.49 times (SD = 1.82). This means that the interviewers repeated 174 (6%) out of 2858 focused questions (158 OP and 16 suggestive prompts). The development of responses to all 260 repetitions is shown in Table 2.</p> <p>2 The development of the first and repeated 260 responses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>First response</bold></th><th><bold>Response to repetition</bold></th></tr><tr><th><bold>Agreeing</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th><th><bold>Disagreeing</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th><th><bold>Other</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th><th><bold>Sum</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Agreeing</td><td><bold>75</bold></td><td>34</td><td>7</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td><bold>(29)</bold></td><td>(13)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(45)</td></tr><tr><td>Disagreeing</td><td>35</td><td><bold>72</bold></td><td>17</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>(13)</td><td><bold>(28)</bold></td><td>(7)</td><td>(48)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td><bold>10</bold></td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>(2)</td><td>(2)</td><td><bold>(4)</bold></td><td>(8)</td></tr><tr><td>Sum</td><td>115</td><td>111</td><td>34</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>(44)</td><td>(43)</td><td>(13)</td><td>(100)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Figures in bold type indicate that the later responses were the same as the first responses (60%; 157 times). Figures in regular types indicate that the answers were changed (40%; 103 times).</p> <p>Sixty percent (<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref65">157</reflink>) of the responses to these 260 repeated focused questions remained the same and 40% (<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref66">103</reflink>) of the responses changed. A chi‐squared test confirmed that responses to repeated questions changed significantly from responses given the first time the questions were asked, [χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>) = 41.3, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001].</p> <p>When the original and repeated questions were identical, 42% (90 out of 260) of the responses remained the same, but when the questions were similar rather than identical repetitions, 34% (170 out of 260) of the responses remained the same. The difference between these proportions was not significant, however, indicating that the type of repetition did not affect the likelihood that responses would change. Subsequent analyses focused on the number of times that questions were repeated (Table 3). Responses were more likely to change after the third repetition than after the first and second repetition [χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) = 8.38, <emph>P</emph> < 0.01]. Similarly, responses were more likely to change after the fourth or later repetition than after the third [χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) = 8.85, <emph>P</emph> < 0.01]. Clearly, the more times questions were repeated, the more likely witnesses were to change their responses, although even the first repetition led witnesses to change their responses quite often (104 out of 174; 60%).</p> <p>3 Changes in responses depending on the number of repetitions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Number of repetitions</bold></th><th><bold>Changed answer</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th><th><bold>Total number of instances</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1st repetition</td><td>104</td><td>174</td></tr><tr><td>(60)</td><td>(100)</td></tr><tr><td>2nd repetition</td><td>28</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>(60)</td><td>(100)</td></tr><tr><td>3rd repetition</td><td>15</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>(79)</td><td>(100)</td></tr><tr><td>4th or higher repetition</td><td>18</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>(90)</td><td>(100)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>165</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>(63)</td><td>(100)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We then examined the degree to which responses changed the first time that these 174 questions were asked again (Table 4). Sixty‐five (37%) of the responses changed completely, with 30% (<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>) of the agreements becoming disagreements and 27% (<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>) of the disagreements becoming agreements.</p> <p>4 Changes in the combined responses when questions were repeated for the first time</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>First response</bold></th><th><bold>Agreeing</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th><th><bold>Disagreeing</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th><th><bold>Other</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th><th><bold>Sum</bold> 
 <bold><italic>n</italic> (%)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Agreeing</td><td><bold>51</bold></td><td>24</td><td>5</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td><bold>(29)</bold></td><td>(14)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(46)</td></tr><tr><td>Disagreeing</td><td>21</td><td><bold>49</bold></td><td>9</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>(12)</td><td><bold>(28)</bold></td><td>(5)</td><td>(45)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td><bold>9</bold></td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>(1)</td><td>(3)</td><td><bold>(5)</bold></td><td>(9)</td></tr><tr><td>Sum</td><td>73</td><td>78</td><td>23</td><td>174</td></tr><tr><td>(42)</td><td>(45)</td><td>(13)</td><td>(100)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Figures in bold type indicate that the answers were unchanged (63%; 109 times in sum). Figures in regular type indicate that the answers were changed (37%; 65 times in sum).</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-8">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study we asked how eyewitnesses with a variety of learning disabilities (ranging from unspecified DDs to ASDs) responded to repeated focused prompts within an initial forensic interview. Focused questions were not frequently repeated but these possibly contaminating questions were often used when trying to elicit information from these suspected victims. We predicted that repeated focused questions might lead CYIDs to change their responses and found that responses were indeed changed 40% of the time. The likelihood of change did not vary depending on whether or not the questions were repeated identically, but major changes occurred even the first time focused questions were repeated and responses were more likely to change the more times questions were repeated.</p> <p>Experimental research similarly shows that the repetition of questions is associated with changed responses ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref73">37</reflink>]), although similar changes do not occur when open‐questions are asked ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref74">53</reflink>]). In experiments, repetitions are often grouped together whereas repeated questions in real life forensic investigations tend to be scattered throughout the interview, repeated in both similar and identical formats ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref76">37</reflink>]). In forensic interviews with TD children, inconsistent responses often follow focused questioning ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref77">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref78">49</reflink>]) and this study indicates that the police officers' use of repeated focused questions in interviews with CYIDs affected the consistency of responding as well. Such inconsistency makes it difficult to understand what really happened and indeed may lead investigators to question credibility ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>]). Because this was a field study, accuracy could not be determined, of course, but we do know that at least one of the responses to these repeated questions was incorrect.</p> <p>It is problematic that CYIDs may be encouraged to change answers within investigative interviews, especially because these witnesses may have greater difficulty remembering and communicating their experiences. We do not know why these suspected victims changed their responses: they may not have known the correct answer, not have remembered the requested detail, or not have understood the questions. Whatever the reason, these children and youths were not given the opportunity to report reliably because they were asked potentially contaminating questions repeatedly.</p> <p>The quality of police interviews is extremely important in the Swedish justice system because children and youths (depending on maturity) usually do not have to participate in court proceedings. Instead, prosecutors refer to videotaped police interviews with suspected victims ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref80">58</reflink>]). If the interviews are not of a high standard, therefore, it is likely that the suspected victims' reports will be undervalued. Regardless of eyewitnesses' communicative abilities, police officers should give priority to interview strategies that allow them to obtain the most accurate and complete information ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref81">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref82">41</reflink>]). We know from previous research that people who have intellectual and mental disabilities are less accurate than TD peers when focused questions are asked ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref83">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref84">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]). People with intellectual disabilities are also more likely than those without such disabilities to acquiesce to OP questions ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref86">10</reflink>]) and CYIDs are more suggestible than normally developing peers ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref87">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref88">31</reflink>]). As a result, interviewers should start with open‐ended questions and then proceed to more specific questions as needed ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref89">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref90">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref91">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref92">41</reflink>]). Open questions prompt respondents to recall information from memory and do not specify the contents of the memories to be retrieved. They thus elicit richer and more accurate reports than do more focused prompts because the latter often require that respondents relate to one or more of the options suggested by the interviewers, thereby constraining or shaping their responses ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref93">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref95">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref96">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref98">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref99">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref100">38</reflink>]). In this study, the Swedish police officers, like those who interviewed children in previous studies ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref101">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref102">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref103">8</reflink>]), did not follow recommendations to ask open‐ended questions, nor did they successfully avoid repetitions of potentially contaminating questions. The effects of repeating OP and suggestive questions may vary depending on the severity of disability, as well as the age and maturity of the interviewees, making it likely that the interviewers' behaviour had especially negative effects in these interviews.</p> <p>Police officers need to recognise that people with a variety of learning disabilities have more limited memory capacities than their TD peers ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref104">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref105">31</reflink>]) and that focused questions encourage interviewees with intellectual disabilities to respond even when they do not know the answer, leading them to respond inaccurately ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref106">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref107">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref108">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref109">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref110">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref111">13</reflink>]). Verbal children with ASDs may also respond inaccurately when not being carefully interviewed because they cannot abstract gist memories and have difficulty accessing and controlling memory retrieval ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref113">31</reflink>]). Suggestibility increases when people have reason to mistrust their own memories ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref114">55</reflink>]), so people with intellectual disabilities may have learnt to rely on others when they fail to remember or do not understand the questions asked. Likewise, people with ASDs may not integrate different aspects of their event memories ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref115">31</reflink>]), becoming uncertain when questions involve repeated suggestions. CYIDs are vulnerable witnesses in need of specialist interviewing skills to ensure that they provide reliable reports ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref116">28</reflink>]). Our study showed that eyewitnesses with learning disabilities may change their answers dramatically when focused questions are repeated. Therefore, police officers should be specifically trained not only to minimise the use of focused questions but also to avoid repeating such potentially contaminating types of questions.</p> <p>The generalisation of our findings is limited by uncertainties about specific diagnoses, the large age range, and the fact that we do not know which of the respondents' answers were accurate. The heterogeneity of the sample may also have reduced the power of the statistical tests because we combined those diagnosed with ASDs with those who had other intellectual disabilities. In addition, the sample was selective rather than representative. That said, few researchers have investigated how children will respond to repeated focused questions in the course of forensic interviews. The present findings also underline the need for further laboratory studies in which the necessary controls can be implemented. There is e.g. a need for laboratory studies involving children and youths with specific diagnoses in which the accuracy of responses to repeated focused questions can be assessed. We also need to know more about the ways in which responses vary when the wording and format of repeated questions vary.</p> <hd id="AN0037589893-9">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>This research was funded by the Sunnerdahl Handicap Foundation in Sweden. The authors are grateful to the police officers who so generously provided copies of their interviews.</p> <ref id="AN0037589893-10"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref59" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder: DSM‐IV 4th edn. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bowler D. M., Gardinger J. M. & Berthollier N. (2004) Source memory in adolescents and adults with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34, 533 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref36" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brady M. S., Poole D. A., Warren A. R. & Jones H. R. (1999) Young children's responses to yes/no questions: patterns and problems. Applied Developmental Sciences 3, 47 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref53" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brock P., Fisher R. P. & Cutler B. C. (1999) Examining the cognitive interview in a double test paradigm. Psychology, Crime and Law 5, 29 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref39" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ceci S. J. & Bruck M. (1995) Jeopardy in the Courtroom. A Scientific Analysis of Children's Testimony. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref24" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cederborg A.‐C. & Lamb M. E. (2006) How does the legal system respond when children with learning difficulties are victimized? Child Abuse and Neglect 30, 451 – 574.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref81" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cederborg A.‐C. & Lamb M. E. (2008a) Interviewing alleged victims with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52, 49 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref103" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cederborg A.‐C. & Lamb M. E. (2008b) Intensive training of forensic interviewers. In: Child Abuse and Violence (eds T. I. Richardsson & M. V. Williams), pp. 1 – 17. Nova Science Publishers, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref101" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cederborg A.‐C., Orbach Y., Sternberg K. J. & Lamb M. E. (2001) Investigative interviews of child witnesses in Sweden. Child Abuse and Neglect 24, 1355 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clare I. C. H. & Gudjonsson G. H. (1993) Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation, and acquiescence in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap): implications for reliability during police interrogations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 32, 295 – 301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dale P. S., Loftus E. F. & Rathbun L. (1978) The influence of the form of the question of the eyewitness testimony of preschool children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 74, 269 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dent H. R. & Stephenson G. M. (1979) An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18, 41 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ericson K. I. (2000) Factors affecting witness capacity in individuals with developmental disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International 60, 4299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fivush R. & Schwarzmueller A. (1995) Say it once again: effects of repeated questions on children's event recall. Journal of Traumatic Stress 8, 555 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fowler A. E. (1998) Language in mental retardation: association with and dissociation from general cognition. In: Handbook of Mental Retardation and Development (eds J. A. Burack, R. M. Hodapp & E. Zigler), pp. 290 – 333. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert J. A. E. & Fisher R. P. (2006) The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology 20, 723 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillberg C. (1995) Clinical Child Neuropsychiatry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon B. & Schroeder C. S. (1995) Sexuality: A Developmental Approach to Problems. Plenum, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gudjonsson G. H. & Clare I. C. H. (1995) The relationship between confabulation and intellectual ability, memory, interrogative suggestibility and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences 19, 333 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gudjonsson G. H. & Henry L. (2003) Child and adult witnesses with intellectual disability: the importance of suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology 8, 241 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry L. A. & Gudjonsson G. H. (1999) Eyewitness memory and suggestibility in children with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation 104, 491 – 508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry L. A. & Gudjonsson G. H. (2003) Eyewitness memory, suggestibility and repeated recall sessions in children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. Law and Human Behavior 27, 481 – 505.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry L. A. & Gudjonsson G. H. (2007) Individual and developmental differences in eyewitness recall and suggestibility in children with intellectual disabilities. Applied Cognitive Psychology 21, 361 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Home Office et al. (2002) Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: guidance for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses including children. London, Home Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howie P., Sheehan M., Mojarrad T. & Wrzesinska M. (2004) Undesirable' and 'desirable' shifts in children's responses to repeated questions: age differences in the effect of providing a rationale for repetition. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18, 1161 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutcheson G. D., Baxter J. S., Telfer K. & Warden D. (1995) Child witness statement quality: questions type and errors of omission. Law and Human Behavior 19, 631 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iarocci G. & Burack J. A. (1998) Understanding the development of attention in persons with mental retardation: challenging the myths. In: Handbook of Mental Retardation and Development (eds J. A. Burack, R. M. Hodapp & E. Zigler), pp. 349 – 81. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones D. P. H. (2003) Communicating with Vulnerable Children. A Guide for Practitioners. Gaskell, London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan R. & Powell S. (1995) Understanding and Teaching Children with Autism. J. Wiley, Chichester.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan R. R. (2002) What's love got to do with it? Making sense of emotions in autism; biology cognition and treatment. In: Building Bridges, Papers from Atuism Research Conference (ed. G. Linfoot). Dunham, Sunderland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan R. R. (2008) Practical implications of memory characteristics in autistic spectrum disorders. In: Memory in Autism (eds J. Boucher & D. Bowler), pp. 293 – 310. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kebbell M. R. & Hatton C. (1999) People with mental retardation as witnesses in court: a review. Mental Retardation 37, 179 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kebbell M. R. & Wagstaff G. F. (1997) Why do the police interview eyewitnesses? Interview objectives and the evaluation of eyewitness performance. Journal of Psychology 131, 595 – 601.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kebbell M. R., Hatton C. & Johnson S. D. (2004) Witnesses with intellectual disabilities in court: what questions are asked and what influence do they have? Legal and Criminological Psychology 9, 23 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krähenbühl S. (2007) The effect of question repetition on young children's eyewitness testimony. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krähenbühl S. J., Blades M. S. & Westcott H. (2005) The effect of question repetition in police interviews with children: An analysis and an experiment. Unpublished manuscript. University of Scheffield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krähenbühl S. & Blades M. (2006) The effect of question repetition within interviews on young children's eyewitness recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94, 57 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb M. E. & Fauchier A. (2001) The effects of question type on self contradiction by children in the course of forensic interviews. Applied Cognitive Development 15, 483 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb M. E., Hershkowitz I., Sternberg K. J., Esplin P. W., Hovav M., Manor T. et al. (1996) Effects of investigative utterance types on Israeli children's responses. International Journal of Behavioral Development 19, 627 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb M. E., Orbach Y., Hershkowitz I., Horowitz D. & Abbott C. B. (2007) Does the type of prompt affect the accuracy of information provided by alleged victims of abuse in forensic interviews? Applied Cognitive Psychology 21, 1117 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb M. E., Hershkowitz I., Orbach Y. & Esplin P. W. (2008) Tell Me What Happened: Structured Investigative Interviews of Young Victims and Witnesses. Wiley, Chichester and Hoboken, NJ.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyon T. (2002) Applying suggestibility research to the real world: the case of repeated questions. Law and Contemporary Problems 65, 97 – 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrory, E., Henry L. A. & Happe F. (2007) Eye‐witness memory and suggestibility in children with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 48, 482 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Memon A. & Vartoukian R. (1996) The effects of repeated questioning on young children's eyewitness testimony. British Journal of Psychology 87, 403 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michel M. K., Gordon B. N., Ornstein P. A. & Simpson M. A. (2000) The abilities of children with mental retardation to remember personal experiences: implications for testimony. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 29, 453 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers J. E. B., Redlich A. D., Goodman G. S., Prizmich L. P. & Imwinkelried E. (1999) Jurors' perceptions of hearsay in child sexual abuse. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 5, 388 – 419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oates K. & Shrimpton S. (1991) Children's memories for stressful and non‐stressful events. Medicine, Science and Law 31, 4 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orbach Y. & Lamb M. E. (2000) Enhancing children's narratives in investigative interviews. Child Abuse and Neglect 24, 1631 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orbach Y. & Lamb M. E. (2001) The relationship between within‐interview contradictions and eliciting interviewer utterances. Child Abuse and Neglect 25, 323 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perlman N. B., Ericson K. I., Esses V. M. & Isaacs J. (1994) The developmentally handicapped witness. Competency as a function of question format. Law and Human Behaviour 18, 171 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole D. & White L. T. (1995) Tell me again and again: stability and change in the repeated testimonies of children and adults. In: Memory and Testimony in the Child Witness (eds M. S. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman & Y. S. Ben‐Porath), pp. 24 – 43. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole D. A. & Lamb M. E. (1998) Investigative Interviews of Children: A Guide for Helping Professionals. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole D. A. & White L. T. (1991) Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology 27, 975 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole D. A. & White L. T. (1993) Two years later: effects of question repetition and retention interval on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology 29, 844 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schacter D. (2003) How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. Souvenir Press, London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Semmler C. A. & Brewer N. (2002) The effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 20, 423 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan P. M. & Knutson J. F. (2000) Maltreatment and disabilities: a population‐based epidemiological study. Child Abuse and Neglect 24, 1257 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutorius H. & Kaldal A. (2003) Bevisprövning vid Sexualbrott. (Sifting of Evidence in Sexual Abuse Cases). Nordstedts juridik, Stockholm.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tager‐Flusberg H. (1991) Semantic processing in the free recall of autistic children; further evidence for a cognitive deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 9, 417 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trevarthen C. (2000) Autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting communication and learning in early childhood: prenatal origins, post‐natal course and effective educational support. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids 63, 41 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson C. & Powell M. (2001) A Guide to Interviewing Children. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zigler E. (1969) Developmental versus difference theories of mental retardation and the problem of motivation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 73, 536 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By A.‐C. Cederborg; H. Danielsson; D. La Rooy and M. E. Lamb</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref114"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ835878
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Repetition of Contaminating Question Types when Children and Youths with Intellectual Disabilities Are Interviewed
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cederborg%2C+A%2E-C%22">Cederborg, A.-C</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Danielsson%2C+H%2E%22">Danielsson, H.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22La+Rooy%2C+D%2E%22">La Rooy, D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lamb%2C+M%2E+E%2E%22">Lamb, M. E.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Intellectual+Disability+Research%22"><i>Journal of Intellectual Disability Research</i></searchLink>. May 2009 53(5):440-449.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexual+Abuse%22">Sexual Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Retardation%22">Mental Retardation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Repetition%22">Repetition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questioning+Techniques%22">Questioning Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Victims+of+Crime%22">Victims of Crime</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Responses%22">Responses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reliability%22">Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Adults%22">Young Adults</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sweden%22">Sweden</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01160.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-2633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: The present study examined the effects of repeating questions in interviews investigating the possible sexual abuse of children and youths who had a variety of intellectual disabilities. We predicted that the repetition of option-posing and suggestive questions would lead the suspected victims to change their responses, making it difficult to understand what actually happened. Inconsistency can be a key factor when assessing the reliability of witnesses. Materials: Case files and transcripts of investigative interviews with 33 children and youths who had a variety of intellectual disabilities were obtained from prosecutors in Sweden. The interviews involved 25 females and 9 males whose chronological ages were between 5.4 and 23.7 years when interviewed (M = 13.2 years). Results: Six per cent of the questions were repeated at least once. The repetition of focused questions raised doubts about the reports because the interviewees changed their answers 40% of the time. Conclusions: Regardless of the witnesses' abilities, it is important to obtain reports that are as accurate and complete as possible in investigative interviews. Because this was a field study, we did not know which responses were accurate, but repetitions of potentially contaminating questions frequently led the interviewees to contradict their earlier answers. This means that the interviewers' behaviour diminished the usefulness of the witnesses' testimony.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 61
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ835878
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ835878
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01160.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 440
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sexual Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Retardation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Repetition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questioning Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Victims of Crime
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Responses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sweden
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Repetition of Contaminating Question Types when Children and Youths with Intellectual Disabilities Are Interviewed
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cederborg, A.-C
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Danielsson, H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: La Rooy, D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lamb, M. E.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2009
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-2633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1