Children's episodic and generic reports of alleged abuse

Summary: With the present data, we explored the relations between the language of interviewer questions, children’s reports, and case and child characteristics in forensic interviews. Results clearly indicated that the type of questions posed by interviewers— either probing generic or episodic features of an event—was related to the specificity of information reported by children. Further, interviewers appeared to adjust their questioning strategies based on the frequency of the alleged abuse. Children alleging single instances of abuse were asked more episodic questions than those alleging multiple abuses. In contrast, children alleging multiple incidents of abuse were asked a greater proportion of generic questions. Given that investigators often seek forensically relevant episodic information, it is recommended that training for investigators focus on recognition of prompt selection tendencies and developing strategies for posing non-suggestive, episodically focused questions. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. In this paper we explore interviewer and child interviewee language specificity in investigative interviews of sexual and physical abuse allegations. There is a vast literature on how investigative interviewers can enhance, or interfere with, a child’s statement (e.g., Kuehnle & Connell, 2009; Poole & Lamb, 1998). However, there is relatively little informative work about the potential influence of case and child characteristics on the language used by interviewers when questioning children, and likewise, the potential relations between the specificity of features probed by interviewers and children’s verbal responses. This is a surprising omission because with an understanding of how these factors are related, interviewers may be able to adjust their questioning strategies to best suit both child interviewees and their own investigative needs. With the present data, we explore the relations between the specificity of interviewer questions, children’s reports, and case and child characteristics in forensic interviews. In the study of investigative interviews, several key recommendations have emerged. Perhaps most prominently, it is recommended that interviewers rely on open-ended prompts that elicit narrative descriptions from children and avoid the use of closed-ended prompts such as questions posed in the yes/no format, when possible (e.g., Lamb, Sternberg, & Esplin, 2000; Orbach & Lamb, 2000; Sternberg, Lamb, Orbach, Esplin, & Mitchell, 2001). Consensus regarding the superiority of open-ended questions has been supported by research in both field and laboratory contexts: open-ended prompts tend to elicit reports that are more detailed and accurate than closed-ended prompts (e.g., Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin, Stewart, & Mitchell, 2003; Sternberg, Lamb, Hershkowitz, Esplin, Redlich, & Sunshine, 1996). However, a challenge often faced by investigative interviewers is that reliance on open-ended questions can make it difficult to obtain complete reports of events due to the lack of guidance interviewers provide to elicit information (Baker-Ward, Gordon, Ornstein, Larus, & Clubb, 1993). Of course, this is exactly the point of openended questions—to avoid providing such cues. Yet, because children’s ability to report experienced events in detail can be impoverished, cues may be required to elicit detailed information. This is particularly true for younger children, who tend to provide less information in free recall than their older counterparts (Ornstein, Baker-Ward, Gordon, & Merritt, 1997). This well-known struggle in selecting prompts is the focus of this work: what factors, knowingly or unknowingly, contribute to the specificity of selected prompts and thereby the specificity of the features of an event that are probed? And, what is the impact of prompt selection on children’s reports?