Authors’ response to Vieth (2008)

Abstract

In 2007, Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin, and Horowitz published in Child Abuse & Neglect a review of empirical research on the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol in which they provided extensive research supporting the conclusion that the NICHD Protocol “comprises a useful and usable set of guidelines that allow trained interviewers to conduct investigative interviews that hew more closely than they otherwise would to universally endorsed professional guidelines” (p. 1212). Lamb and colleagues did not suggest that the NICHD Protocol was the only valid and reliable method for interviewing children. They noted that “the Finding Words technique, otherwise known as CornerHouse’s RATAC, has been officially adopted by many jurisdictions and states and their training courses have been very popular” (p. 1211). However, they also mentioned two limitations of the RATAC approach. Specifically, Lamb et al. argued that “[b]ecause the Finding Words approach includes aids such as drawings and anatomical dolls that can adversely affect accurate retrieval…researchers need to evaluate the use of these potentially risky tools by interviewers following the Finding Words guidelines” (p. 1212) and noted that “no research on what RATAC-trained interviewers actually do when interviewing children has been published (p. 1211).” In a critical letter published in this journal, Vieth (2008), a leading proponent of the Finding Words protocol, did not cite any research on RATAC-trained interviewer behavior but instead questioned the value of published research on child interviewing as well as the acceptance of the Protocol in judicial contexts. In this response, we correct some erroneous statements made by Vieth while highlighting agreement with him on several important issues.