EDMG611Wk4

Child Abuse & Neglect 38 (2014) 212–216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Repeated interviews about repeated abuse: Evaluation of a case study

Sue D. Hobbs, Gail S. Goodman ∗, Danielle Goodman-Shaver University of California, Davis, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 7 January 2014 Accepted 7 January 2014 Available online 15 February 2014

Brubacher and La Rooy examined three forensic interviews conducted with a 12-year-old child who allegedly experienced sexual abuse from age 7 to 11 years. Based on these interviews and relevant research, Brubacher and La Rooy offer suggestions on ways in which forensic interviews may be improved. We congratulate the authors on providing valuable insights about a child’s report of repeated sexual abuse and about the repeated forensic interviews that followed the initial disclosure.

The case described affords an opportunity to learn anecdotally about the elicitation and provision of generic and episodic information in a child forensic interview context. For Brubacher and La Rooy, generic information refers to statements about the “gist” of repeated events (e.g., “He usually closes the door”; “He always waits until my sister is asleep”), whereas episodic information concerns specific incidents (e.g., “Last time, he made me touch his private part”; “One time, he hit me in the face”). If a child cannot report details of specific incidents (particularization), prosecution can be hampered (e.g., the legal system may require particularization so that a defendant can establish an alibi, although in child victim cases, the requirement for the child to be specific about such matters as time and place may be relaxed). Thus, it is of considerable interest to the legal system, including forensic interviewers, to find ways to help a child describe specific incidents of repeated events. Psychologists have also spent considerable energy examining developmental trends in this realm of child memory research from a purely theoretical perspective (e.g., Nelson & Fivush, 2004). As a result, there is a plethora of both laboratory and field research that bears on the issue (e.g., Brubacher, Glisic, Roberts, & Powell, 2011, Brubacher, Malloy, Lamb, & Roberts, 2013; Farrar & Goodman, 1992).

Brubacher and La Rooy chose a case that provides excellent examples for discussion about how to tailor forensic interviews for heightened recall when a child has experienced repeated abuse over several years. There are, however, some important drawbacks to the publication of forensic interview evaluations (not a term that Brubacher and La Rooy themselves used) in journals such as Child Abuse & Neglect. While recognizing the paper’s considerable strengths, we discuss some of the drawbacks of publishing such papers, using the Brubacher and La Rooy report as an example.

Here we preview the points we make in this commentary. First, we question whether, as a rule, interview evaluations based on a single case should be published in scientifically based journals. The single-case evaluation adds little to the

extant body of research (e.g., Brubacher, Malloy, Lamb, & Roberts, 2013), except as a teaching tool to point out what could have been handled differently in this one particular instance. Second, we question generalizations from single cases, given particulars inherent in an “n of 1” evaluation. Third, we consider reasons why interpretations of case findings and resulting suggestions for interview best practices may, at times, be questioned. Finally, ethical considerations must be addressed.

∗ Corresponding author address: Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.01.001

O i

W

C T a i d o t o r o c s c e t t & a g

o G t e n s C

w t e a

G

c i i

a o e w a o i

b e r t a t e

S.D. Hobbs et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 38 (2014) 212–216 213

verall, although case studies can provide instructive examples and a forum for offering practical advice, there are pitfalls n publishing articles of this nature. We hope that our comments will spark reflection and discussion.

hy publish interview evaluations in Child Abuse & Neglect?

Case studies about child witnesses can be highly informative both from a scientific and applied perspective (e.g., ederborg, Lamb, & Laurell, 2007; Hershkowitz, 2001; Jones & Krugman, 1986; Leander, Christianson, & Granhag, 2007; err, 1988). The main issue we raise here for Child Abuse & Neglect is whether the journal should publish interview evalu- tions, including ones in which authors provide instruction to the reader about how children should be interviewed. First, t is reasonable to question if an “n of 1” provides a sufficiently useful scientific teaching tool, in particular when a case escription will likely not include the large variety of variables that could in principle be important to consider (e.g., degree f rapport established, emotional tone of the interview). Second, without knowing more about the case and without reading he transcripts, it would be difficult to assess the data presented. Take, for example, a situation where the materials were btained from an attorney representing one side of a legal action, in which case filtering of the information obtained by the esearcher could have occurred. Third, from an “n of 1” study, we cannot rightly infer what is typical of children’s reports f child sexual abuse or the degree of variability to be expected across children, interviews, and situations. Regarding the urrent case study, although informative research on memory for single versus repeated events has been conducted, and ome normative trends have been established, findings from former laboratory and field research would likely vary with hildren’s age (e.g., young children may report a one- or two-time event in generic terms [Fivush, 1984; see also Brubacher t al., 2011; Farrar & Goodman, 1992]; and, according to some influential psychological theories, children are incapable of rue episodic memory until later preschool or early elementary school years [Tulving, 1983; but see Bauer, 2005]), with ype of event reported (e.g., most laboratory studies have examined memory for neutral events [see, for example, Powell

Thomson, 2003]), and with individual differences among children (e.g., adolescents with “overgeneral” memory, which is ssociated with trauma history and avoidant coping strategies, show a preference to report autobiographical memories in eneric terms [see, for example, Ogle et al., 2013; Williams, 1988]).

Of particular concern, publishing such papers opens the door to reports by professionals who are paid as experts to work n legal cases. Experts are frequently retained to analyze child forensic interviews, so there could be a flood of such papers. iven the adversarial context in which such interview critiques take place, defense and prosecution experts could evaluate

he same case through quite different lenses. Using the present case as an example, a defense expert could argue that greater vent knowledge (e.g., from repeated experience) is associated with heightened tendencies to produce false memories, that ew information elicited across interviews is likely to be inaccurate, that repeated interviewing itself leads to increased uggestibility and false memory errors, and that alternative hypotheses were not adequately tested (e.g., Brainerd, 2013; eci & Bruck, 1993; Otgaar, Candel, Scorboria, & Merckelbach, 2009; but see Goodman & Quas, 2008; La Rooy & Lamb, 2011).

Of importance, we often cannot know for certain if a specific case represents a true or false report. In some studies in hich children’s reports and/or child forensic interviews are evaluated, ground truth is known through recordings made by

he perpetrator (e.g., Bidrose & Goodman, 2000; Leander, 2010; see Paz-Alonso, Ogle, & Goodman, 2013, for review). In the nd, despite a successful prosecution, we do not know if cases such as the one described by Brubacher and La Rooy involve true or false report. Therefore, most case evaluations are limited.

eneralizations from a single example

Ideally, one learns generalizable principles from research. It is difficult, however, to generalize from a single case to hildren and interviews in general. Take for example that the child in the Brubacher and La Rooy case was 12 years old when nterviewed. It is difficult to know if the same analysis concerning provision of and questions about generic and episodic nformation would apply to a younger or older child.

Of course, cases can differ in numerous ways aside from child age. Interview procedures may vary across jurisdictions nd time periods, particularly as child forensic interview standards are still evolving. These changes limit generalizability f the “n of 1” findings. For example, the interview guidelines employed in the country where the case in point took place mphasized obtaining episodic information in early interviews. Moreover, because of the country’s practices, the interviews ere not video- or even audio-recorded. Two interviewers were always in the room with the child, one person to scribe

nd the other to conduct the interview. The interviews were conducted more slowly than they would have been if video- r audio-recording had been used. One might expect a child to be more intimidated and less forthcoming about specific ncidents with two people in the room or lose his or her train of thought or interest, given a slow interview pace.

A real-time scriber might also miss details. Lamb, Orbach, Sternberg, Hershkowitz, and Horowitz (2000) compared ver- atim notes of 20 forensic interviews with audio recordings of these same interviews. Interviewers had several years of xperience in a country where verbatim notes were required by law. However, even with such experience, interviewers

ecorded significantly less information than what was on the audiotapes. Indeed, interviewers missed approximately 25% of he forensically relevant information revealed by children. Considering that the questions asked and the child’s responses re key to the results presented in an interview evaluation paper, the possibility of even minor inaccuracies is important o consider. Again, such issues can affect the generalizability of the results, as well as their validity. Overall, from interview valuation papers, it may be difficult to separate effects of guideline and practice constraints, interviewer questions, and

214 S.D. Hobbs et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 38 (2014) 212–216

children’s responses. Although potential problems with generalizability are not specific to interview evaluations, “n of 1” studies are arguably among the more susceptible.

Interpretations and recommendations about best practices

If journals such as Child Abuse & Neglect publish interview evaluations, a mechanism should be considered to air possible disagreements about authors’ interpretations and their suggestions for interview best practices. Moreover, if a teaching function is included, there is a risk that the journal will be seen as promoting or approving of certain interview techniques.

Considerable debate exists about best practices in forensic interviews of children (e.g., see Toth, 2001). Brubacher and La Rooy, like many others, understandably use the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) protocol as the gold standard for conducting child forensic interviews (Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin & Horowitz, 2007; Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin, 2008). Although there is much positive to be said about the NICHD protocol, other protocols worthy of consideration also exist (e.g., see Saywitz & Camparo, 2013). Given the interviewing advice presented in the Brubacher and La Rooy paper, there is a risk that publication of this interview evaluation will be taken as implying that the journal agrees with the evaluation and is taking a stand about how a child forensic interview should be conducted. We suspect that is not the journal’s intent, but future misinterpretation and misrepresentation could occur, perhaps particularly in legal cases.

Many protocols, including the NICDH one, are likely to be revised as new information about children’s abilities and needs is gained. One possible revision could incorporate Brubacher and La Rooy’s suggestion that interviewers provide a label for each specific event that a child recalls so the child can refer back to these events with less confusion. For example, if a child says that abuse occurred when “mum was putting sister to bed,” the interviewer should say, “Let’s call that the time mum was putting sister to bed.” The idea is that if a label is given to an event, the child and interviewer can talk more about it later, and both will be talking about the same event instead of two separate but similar events. The labels might be helpful to a child who must distinguish among a series of similar events. However, in reality, it may be difficult for a child under a certain age to label events and use such labels consistently. It is also possible that interrupting a child to provide a label during the free narrative phase of an interview would disrupt the flow of conversation and be counterproductive (Wilson & Powell, 2001). From a case evaluation, we cannot really conclude what is best in general or per age group.

We fully agree that there is a need to develop techniques for forensic interviewers to help children report clearly about separate but similar events. At present, recommendations for eliciting episodic information are mixed. Wilson and Powell (2001) recommend that before the interviewer asks for episodic details, the interviewer first allow the child to provide his or her narrative without interruption (see also Fisher and York, 2007). Brubacher’s research shows that when reporting on repeated events, if a child is permitted to recall generic information before specific information, the child ultimately provides more episodic details than if the interview is conducted in the reverse (Brubacher, Roberts, & Powell, 2012). Yet, in contrast to the above research and recommendations, Schneider, Price, Roberts, and Heidrick (2011), based on their own studies, suggest that interviewers be trained to ask episodic instead of generic questions when interviewing a child who has alleged repeated abuse. Overall, interview recommendations must be based on solid research, not a case evaluation, from which recommendations for practice might be premature. Such research ideally should cover a broad age range, traumatic and nontraumatic events, true and false memories, and possible cultural and language differences in expression of memories. Fortunately, Brubacher, La Rooy, and their colleagues are actively involved in such research and contributing mightily to it. Our point is that publication of recommendations based on case evaluations could, in many instances, be risky.

We note there is also a chance in interview evaluations of misstatement of findings, over-or under-interpretation, and value judgments. For example, despite Brubacher and La Rooy’s generally careful approach, the authors seem to err in comparing the questions asked in the three interviews of the child victim to questions asked in previous “high” and “low” quality interviews (see Table 2 of their paper). The authors state, regarding the three interviews, that “percentages for all prompt-types bear more similarity to the ‘high-’ than ‘low-’ quality interviews” (p. 12). The questions in the second and third interviews in fact show greater similarities to “low-quality” interviews (fewer open-ended prompts and increases in option-posing questions). Moreover, it may be difficult to avoid value judgments as to what is a high- versus low-quality interview in such reports. Note that the studies relied upon did not assess the accuracy of the children’s reports, and thus high and low quality regarding accuracy was not directly determined. There could also be a need to avoid offending whoever conducted the interviews or whoever provided them to the researchers. Problems of this type may be particularly likely in interview evaluation studies.

Fortunately, much of what one would read in a case study such as this one would surely be in line with and supported by

previous scientific research. One example here is the need for a practice interview. Research suggests that if a child is allowed to practice a narrative about a nonthreatening event, the child will report a greater amount of information in the substantive portion of the interview (Roberts, Lamb, & Sternberg, 2004; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013; Sternberg et al., 1997). However, other recommendations based on interview evaluations may be premature until they are more definitely supported by solid research.

E

s L w c i

C

t e t

a i c b o

R

B B

B

B

B

B

C

C

F F

F

G

H J

L

L

L

L

L

L

N

O

O

S.D. Hobbs et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 38 (2014) 212–216 215

thical concerns

We would be remiss if we did not mention possible ethical concerns in regard to publishing interview evaluations from ingle cases. There is a risk that people could identify the victim, and confidentiality would thus be breached. Brubacher and a Rooy are careful not to mention names, dates, or even the country in which the interviews took place. Nontheless, even hen names of victims are not revealed, there may be instances in which it may be impossible to describe central facts of the

ase without inadvertently disclosing-or seeming to disclose (when attributions that readers make are incorrect)-identifying nformation that may result in emotional harm or invasion of privacy.

onclusion

Brubacher and La Rooy provide a valuable analysis of three child forensic interviews that were conducted in an investiga- ion of repeated sexual abuse and suggest to the reader how interviews “should” be conducted. We appreciate the scholarly ffort Brubacher and La Rooy made to provide a valuable teaching tool. Furthermore, they are aware of the limitations of heir study, and they provide appropriate caveats in the Discussion section of their paper.

Case studies can clearly be useful in many ways, including for insights about child forensic interviews and for practical dvice. However, in the end, readers need to weigh the advice against sound empirical research. There are certain risks nvolved in publishing case studies, as articulated in this commentary. For example, journals such as Child Abuse & Neglect ould be seen as taking a position on certain interviewing practices and/or become engulfed in evaluations potentially tainted y the adversary system. Therefore, we recommend that publication of interview evaluations, particularly those with an “n f 1,” be published very rarely in Child Abuse & Neglect, if at all.

eferences

auer, P. (2005). Remembering the times of our lives: Memory in infancy and beyond. New York, NY: Psychology Press. idrose, S., & Goodman, G. (2000). Testimony and evidence: A scientific case study of memory for child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14,

197–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200005/06)14:3 rainerd, C. J. (2013). Developmental reversals in false memory: A new look at the reliability of children’s evidence. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 22, 335–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484468 rubacher, S. P., Glisic, U., Roberts, K. P., & Powell, M. B. (2011). Children’s ability to recall unique aspects of one occurrence of a repeated event. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 25, 351–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1696 rubacher, S. P., Roberts, K. P., & Powell, M. (2012). Retrieval of episodic versus generic information: Does the order of recall affect the amount and accuracy

of details reported by children about repeated events? Developmental Psychology, 48, 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025864 rubacher, S. P., Malloy, L., Lamb, M. E., & Roberts, K. P. (2013). How do interviewers and children discuss individual occurrences of alleged repeated abuse

in forensic interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 443–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2920 eci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 403–439.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403 ederborg, A., Lamb, M. E., & Laurell, O. (2007). Delay of disclosure, minimization and denial of abuse when the evidence is unambiguous: A multivictim

case. In M. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 159–173). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

arrar, M. J., & Goodman, G. S. (1992). Developmental changes in event memory. Child Development, 63, 173–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130911 isher, R. P., & York, R. M. (2007). L’entrevue cognitive: Comment accéder à la mémoire des témoins. In M. St-Yves, & M. Tanguay (Eds.), Psychologie de

l’enquête criminelle: La rechereche dela vérité (Psychology of Criminal Investigation: The research of the truth) (pp. 41–65). Montreal, Canada: Thomson Reuters.

ivush, R. (1984). Learning about school: The development of kindergartners’ school scripts. Child Development, 55, 1697–1709. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129917

oodman, G. S., & Quas, J. A. (2008). Repeated interviews and children’s memory: It’s more than just how many. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 386–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00611.x

ershkowitz, I. (2001). A case study of child sexual false allegation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1397–1411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00274-5 ones, D. P. H., & Krugman, R. (1986). Can a three-year-old child bear witness to her sexual assault and attempted murder? Child Abuse & Neglect, 10,

253–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(86)90086-4 amb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2008). Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. amb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness

of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1201–1231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021

amb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 699–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005556404636

a Rooy, D., & Lamb, M. E. (2011). What happens when interviewers ask repeated questions in forensic interviews with children alleging abuse? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 26, 20–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11896-010-9069-4

eander, L. (2010). Police interviews with child sexual abuse victims: Patterns of reporting, avoidance and denial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 192–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.011

eander, L., Christianson, S. Å., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). A sexual abuse case study: Children’s memories and reports. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 14, 120–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/pplt.14.1.120

elson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111, 486–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.486

gle, C. M., Block, S. D., Harris, L. S., Goodman, G. S., Pineda, A., Timmer, S., & Saywitz, K. J. (2013). Autobiographical memory specificity in child sexual abuse victims. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 321–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412001083

tgaar, H., Candel, I., Scorboria, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2009). Script knowledge enhances the development of children’s false memories. Acta Psychologica, 133, 57–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.09.002

216 S.D. Hobbs et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 38 (2014) 212–216

Paz-Alonso, P. M., Ogle, C. M., & Goodman, G. S. (2013). Children’s memory in “scientific case studies” of child sexual abuse: A review. In B. S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues of investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 143–171). New York, NY: Springer.

Powell, M. B., & Thomson, D. M. (2003). Improving children’s recall of an occurrence of a repeated event: Is it a matter of helping them to generate options? Law and Human Behavior, 27, 365–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024032932556

Roberts, K. P., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. (2004). The effects of rapport-building style on children’s reports of a staged event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 189–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.957

Saywitz, K. J., & Camparo, L. B. (2013). Evidence-based child forensic interviewing: The Developmental Narrative Elaboration Interview. New York: NY: Oxford University Press.

Schneider, L., Price, H. L., Roberts, K. P., & Hedrick, A. M. (2011). Children’s episodic and generic reports of alleged abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 862–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1759

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Yudilevitch, L., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (1997). Effects of introductory style on children’s abilities to describe experiences of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 1133–1146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00071-9

Terr, L. C. (1988). What happens to early memories of trauma? A study of twenty children under age five at the time of documented traumatic events.

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 96–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198801000-00015

Toth, P. (2001). Comparing the NICHD and RATAC child forensic interview approaches—Do the differences matter? The Link, 20(1), 4–6. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Williams, J. M. G. (1988). General and specific autobiographical memory and emotional disturbance. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. W. Sykes (Eds.),

Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 295–300). Chichester, England: Wiley. Wilson, C., & Powell, M. (2001). A guide to interviewing children. New York, NY: Routledge.