Abstract
Three promising investigative interview interventions were assessed in 270 children (age 6–11 years): 71 with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 199 who were typically developing (TD). Children received ‘Verbal Labels’, ‘Sketch Reinstatement of Context’ or ‘Registered Intermediary’ interviews designed to improve interview performance without decreasing accuracy. Children with ASD showed no increases in the number of correct details recalled for any of the three interview types (compared to a Best-Practice police interview), whereas TD children showed significant improvements in the Registered Intermediary and Verbal Labels interviews. Findings suggested that children with ASD can perform as well as TD children in certain types of investigative interviews, but some expected benefits (e.g., of Registered Intermediaries) were not apparent in this study.
Highlights
The aim of the current study was to explore whether three promising investigative interview interventions would increase the amount of information recalled about a witnessed event by child witnesses with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD)
The final question was, do children with ASD differ from typically developing (TD) children in their performance levels on each interview type? To answer this question, we looked at the full sample to assess group differences and possible interactions between interview comparisons and group
Interview condition differences in performance were assessed for four dependent variables: total correct details; total incorrect details; total confabulations; and proportion of correct details
Summary
The aim of the current study was to explore whether three promising investigative interview interventions (one practical and two derived from theory) would increase the amount of information recalled about a witnessed event (without hampering accuracy) by child witnesses with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The context for the study derives from reports of poor memory for events in children with ASD (e.g., Bruck et al 2007; Goddard et al 2014; Millward et al 2000) These findings, coupled with general impairments in social interaction and communication (American Psychiatric Association 2013), may lead to concerns about the reliability of this group as eyewitnesses (McCrory et al 2007). This is worrying, because eyewitnesses provide key investigative leads, such as suggested lines of enquiry and the identification of possible suspects (Kebbell and Milne 1998). It is difficult to provide estimates of autistic involvement in the criminal justice system (e.g., King and Murphy 2014), individuals with ASD are at increased risk of violence, victimisation and abuse (Petersilia 2001) and
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
