The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

GUIDANCE ON INTERVIEWING CHILD WITNESSES IN SCOTLAND - Supporting Child Witnesses Guidance Pack

PART FOUR CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW

48 We strongly advise a phased approach to interviewing. All investigative interviews with a child should be comprised of the phases described below.

The phases of the interview

• Introductions
• Rapport Phase
• Free Narrative
• Questioning
• Closure Phase

49 The interview framework described here is similar to, and incorporates many features and techniques from, several other interview formats described in the literature - the phased interview, stepwise interview, the structured interview protocol, cognitive interview, to name a few (see part 6. Further Reading and References). The general principle behind this approach is to elicit an as accurate and comprehensive account of event(s) from a child as possible, one that may stand up to the scrutiny of the court as legally sound testimony. Although there are five distinct phases, there may be some overlap between these and interviewers should be prepared to switch back and forth between them.

50 It must be emphasised that to effectively apply the techniques described in this guidance in an actual interview setting will require a considerable amount of skill and practice on the interviewers' behalves. Thus, extensive training must be undertaken, and this should be up-to-date involving proper practice and feedback from other practitioners and trained supervisors (see paragraph 16 The guidance and training).

Introductions and explaining purpose

51 Once in the interview room, both interviewers should sit somewhere with an unobstructed view of the child but not in a fashion that might come across as confrontational. Since the child's focus is likely to be directed towards the lead interviewer in the substantive phase of the interview, the second interviewer should be seated somewhere where they can show they are listening to what the child has to say. At the same time they should avoid distracting the child with a look or action that might impede the child's statement.

52 Interviewers should introduce all persons present in the interview room to the child and explain, in age-appropriate language, why each person is in the room. Any preconceptions or misperceptions about the police and social workers (e.g. police only come to see people when they are going to lock them up) can be addressed at this time. The child's preferred name or mode of address should be established. The purpose of the interview should be explained as clearly and simply to the child who should also be given an opportunity to ask questions.

e.g. "Hello ( child's name). My name is -----. I am a police officer/social worker/etc. Part of my job is to listen to children and young people. Sometimes they have things that they want to tell me."

"Do you have any questions about why you are here today?"

53 Children will attend to interviews more successfully when they have a better understanding of the interview purpose. To avoid bias, interviewers should be careful not to suggest the allegation being investigated. Even where the initial concern originated from something the child had said, it is important for the interviewers to hear the child disclose and elaborate on this during the course of the interview with minimal prompting. The aim is to obtain the child's memories of the event(s), in their own words.

54 Another point to explain to the child is that the interview will be recorded. A good way to do this is:

• "I will be writing things down because I want to be sure I remember it properly."
• Before proceeding on to the next stage, interviewers must obtain the child's consent to interview if they have not already done so.

Note: It is important that children are kept informed not only at the planning and interview stages but throughout the course of the whole legal process.

Rapport Phase: establishing a child-centred interview

55 This phase is very important and should never be omitted. How long is spent building rapport depends on the child and their particular circumstances. While some children may be very aware of why they are about to be interviewed and wish to open up straight away, most children will need time before they can talk openly with the interviewers. Thus, the rapport phase would be shorter in the former instance, and more time would be spent in the latter. Building rapport can overcome any initial hesitance, unease or mistrust. It also conveys to the child that they are the most important (central) person in the interview and they are the one who holds the knowledge, not the interviewer.

56 The rapport phase is moreover an excellent opportunity for the interviewer to gain a better understanding of the child's communication skills and current stage of cognitive, social and emotional development. For example, during rapport-building the interviewer may become aware that the child who is apparently "street-wise" might, in reality, only have a superficial understanding.

Interview atmosphere

57 The child should feel as relaxed and as comfortable as possible before beginning the interview. Interviewers should try not to over-emphasise their authority in relation to the child as this might cause the child to clam up or to simply agree with whatever the interviewer says. Police interviewers should wear civilian clothes rather than uniform. Recent research confirms that more information can be obtained from a child when the interviewer is not in uniform (Powell, Wilson & Croft, in press).

58 Other methods interviewers might find conducive include for a very young child sitting down on the floor to be at eye-level. In essence, the interviewer is trying to shift the balance of control in favour of the child. Consequently, the child should feel empowered, which may reduce the desire to simply respond to questions to please the interviewer.

59 The pace of the interview should be dictated primarily by the child.
Their developmental age, attention span, the time it takes for them to overcome any initial mistrust they might have of the interviewers, and so on will all affect the length and pace of the interview. The number and complexity of alleged incidents will also impact on the overall duration of the interview.

60 Interviewers should speak slowly and clearly and allow for pauses. They should refrain from interrupting the child or immediately "jumping in" when the child appears reluctant/unable to talk. In fact, pausing and not interrupting the child is the best technique for allowing the child to search their memory effectively. Interviewers should also speak in a normal voice tone; an affected tone may convey a sense of worry or be perceived as patronising.

61 Interviewers must also be vigilant for signs of fatigue in the child, or the need for a refreshment or toilet break. If the child does wish to take a break, this should never be withheld or offered as a reward in an effort to extract a disclosure. Interviewers should not attempt to drive proceedings along or continue questioning a child that has become very distressed or restless (at the same time, interviewers should not be too hasty to offer breaks when the topic turns to something difficult or embarrassing. This could indicate to the child that the interviewer cannot cope with what they are about to hear). If breaks are taken, a note should be kept of the reasons for them, how long they lasted, what the child was doing during the break, who they spoke to, what was said, and so on.

62 As an icebreaker, interviewers might begin with a few general words about, e.g. the journey to the interview location or what subjects the child had at school that day. The interview then enters the phase where the interviewer introduces the format the subsequent substantive interview will follow - using neutral topics - and encourages the child to talk about themselves.

63 Taking into account all the factors above emphasises the need for flexibility to meet the individual circumstances as presented in each case.

Ground rules

64 Before the child begins the main part of the interview (and particularly before any questions are asked) the interviewer must make clear "ground rules" of the interview. It is recommended that interviewers do not just ask whether the child understands the rules but check by giving examples (see APPENDIX A).

65 Appropriate ground rules to communicate to the child are:

• The interviewer is there mainly to listen. This is the child's chance to do most of the talking.
• The interviewer was not present at the event(s) and therefore needs the child's help to understand what happened.
• Even if the child thinks the interviewer already knows something, they should still tell them anyway.
• If the interviewer asks a question that the child does not know or remember the answer to, it is okay for the child to say "I don't know/remember".
• If the interviewer asks a question that the child finds too difficult or unclear, the child should let the interviewer know so they can rephrase it or approach the subject in a different way.
• The child should not try to guess the answers. They should only talk about true things, things that really happened.
• If the interviewer makes a mistake, or says something that is not true, it is okay for the child to correct the interviewer.
• Sometimes the interviewer will ask the child the same question again. This does not mean that the child gave the wrong answer the first time, it is just to help the interviewer remember what has been said. The child should always tell the truth.

Telling the truth

66 The child does not have to take the oath for an investigative interview but it is advisable to make them aware at the outset of the importance of giving their own, true account. By "true account", that is saying what they believe has happened. Interviewers should not ask for definitions of what is a truth or a lie as this is a difficult task, even for adults. Instead, the interviewer should emphasise that they want to know what the child actually saw with their own eyes, heard with their own ears, smelled with their own nose and tasted with their own mouth.

67 There are no commonly accepted criteria for assessing child witness competency and available research findings lead us to question whether the varied procedures currently used can discriminate between witnesses who will be reliable and those who will not (Lyon, Saywitz, Kaplan & Dorado, 2001).

68 Prior research on children's conceptual knowledge of lies and truth-telling suggests that children possess a good understanding of these concepts provided they are questioned appropriately (Bussey, 1992). Lyon and Saywitz (1999) designed a task that would help very young children identify truth and lies. They presented 4 and 5 year olds with pictures depicting an object and two children accompanied by "conversation bubbles" stating what each child said about the object. One character is said to be telling a lie and the other a truth. The child is simply asked to say which child is telling the truth. The task reduces motivational problems because the child is not asked to identify the interviewer as a liar. The truth/lie task is then followed with a morality task. It shows the same characters but now they are pictured with firstly a judge, then a "lady who comes to visit", the characters at home, next a doctor and then finally Grandma. The child is asked in each instance which character will get into trouble for what they have said (a truth or a lie). Together, these tasks are designed to demonstrate that very young children understand:
(i) that the word "truth" refers to statements corresponding with reality and that "lie" refers to statements that fail to reflect reality; and (ii) that there are consequences when someone lies. (For an illustration, please see Lyon and Saywitz 1999.)

69 The above is one example that can be used with very young children. With young children, the interviewer might use something similar to the following example:

Interviewer: "If a classmate was playing football outside and kicked the ball, accidentally smashing a window, but told the teacher you had broken the window, would this be a truth or a lie?" ( wait for the child's response)

Interviewer: "What should your classmate have said?" ( wait for child's response)

Interviewer: "Why do you think they said it was you?"

Further examples of questions designed to explore competency with young children can be found in Walker (1999).

70 With older children, similar examples to the one above may be used but should involve scenarios more appropriate for their age and level of understanding. Alternatively, the older child could be asked to provide their own example, following the same format as that provided in this guidance (i.e. a scenario is set out, then the child says what they think the person lying should have said, and finally says why they think that person lied).

Note: the examples provided in this document are not prescriptive. Instead they should just be used as a guide as to the format that questions about competency should take. Interviewers should modify the examples so they are suitable for the individual child.

71 For children with special needs, advice about a child's developmental level should guide interviewers as to the type of question to ask. ⁶

Rapport building with a practice interview

72 Once ground rules have been established, a practice interview can be conducted. The topic for the practice interview should be a neutral, personally experienced event. This may be to do with, e.g. the child's school, hobbies, a birthday, or a holiday (see APPENDIX A for an example). The interviewer should ask the child to describe the event from beginning to end.

73 From the practice, the interviewer can also learn more about the child's use and understanding of vocabulary and adjust their own accordingly. The interviewer should also encourage the child to give an open-ended account (and detailed description). They should avoid questions that will prompt brief one-word answers as much as possible, to set the form of the substantive phase of the interview.

74 Even in cases where the child is already familiar with the interviewer(s) through previous contact, time should be taken for fresh rapport building before commencing the interview. How long is spent on this phase is up to the discretion and common sense of the interviewers.

Raising topic of concern

75 The interviewer should now remind the child of the ground rules and move on to raising the topic of concern. This should be done in a way that encourages the child to spontaneously come up with information, a way that is free from suggestive influence. So, for example, a good opener would be,

"Now, it's time to talk about something else, the reason you are here today. Do you know why you are here today?"

A bad opener would be,

"I hear you've been having problems with Uncle Johnny, is that right?"

76 Not all children will be able or willing to respond with relevant information to general prompts (especially when the initial allegation has come from a source other than the child), so interviewers may have to progress to more specific ones. A "hierarchy" of prompts can be found in the protocol in APPENDIX A of this document.

Free narrative

77 Free narrative is the most reliable source of accurate and untainted information provided the child has not been subject to interviewer bias in earlier interviews. A free narrative is the child's own uninterrupted account of what has taken place. Professionals will know from the literature and from experience that, due to their developmental stage, younger children may be less likely to spontaneously provide information than older children and adults. Interviewers should always provide children, of all ages, with sufficient opportunity to describe their version of events, in their own words.

78 There are several ways of obtaining this free narrative. For example, when the child mentions the topic of concern, the interviewer can simply ask, "Tell me everything you can about that".

79 Interviewers should resist "jumping in" to clarify any comments or follow up evidentially relevant statements with focused questions at this stage of the interview. Instead, interviewers should adopt the position of an active listener - that is, let the child know that the interviewer hears what the child is saying and is taking it seriously.

80 If the child begins to falter, the interviewer should be patient and allow for pauses. If it is clear that the child has finished, the interviewer can use a number of strategies (see Facilitative Prompts below).

81 If the child is pained to speak about the topic then reassure them ("It's alright. Take your time, I'm listening" or "Is there something that would make it easier for you to talk with me today?"). Interviewers can be sympathetic but not too personal - avoid using terms of endearment (e.g. "dear", "sweetheart") and initiating physical contact (e.g. leaning over and hugging a child).

82 All personnel present at the interview should ensure that verbal reinforcement is given sporadically and is not contingent on a given response. Never offer the child any form of bribe (e.g. "If you just tell me what he did you can go home"). ⁷

Questioning

83 Even when the child has provided a fairly substantial account of the event(s) from free narrative, it may be necessary to expand what has been said so far, or to clarify ambiguities, with questions. Questioning should ideally be built around what the child has said in the free narrative. Points to consider include the:

• style of questions
• content of questions.

Style of questions

84 Questions can be posed in several ways. Interviewers should always aim to phrase questions in a way that will produce the most detailed response, and is least likely to influence the child's answer in a particular direction.

85 The four main types of question are:

• Open-ended
• Specific
• Closed
• Leading

86 This can be seen as a hierarchy of interview questions, from most preferable down to least preferable, yet interviewers should always strive to return to free narrative (or open-ended questions) as much as possible throughout the interview.

Open-ended questions

87 Open-ended questions are questions phrased in such a way that they invite a more detailed response and do not lead or pressurise the child into giving a particular answer. Research shows this form of question can yield up to 3-4 times longer responses from children.

Example: "You said earlier that you and this man played a game. Please tell me everything you can remember about that".

88 Not only do open-ended questions result in more detailed responses, the evidence obtained in this way is least likely to be challenged in court. The other advantage of open-ended questions is that they serve to give children control over what they want to divulge.

Specific questions

89 Specific questions probe for clarification or a more precise account of the event(s) the child has previously mentioned.

Example : "Where were you when you played this game?"

90 Such "wh-" questions can be useful. Care must be taken with "why" and "how" questions, however, as these can sometimes unintentionally imply blame (e.g. "Why didn't you call out for help?" or "How come you never told anyone this before?"). "Why" questions can also pose problems because they often require a sophisticated understanding of the motivation or reasoning behind an outcome or behaviour.

91 If a child's initial response to a specific question is deemed incomplete, interviewers can pose the question again but in a different form. Persistently repeating a question is not advisable as the child may come to believe their first answer was wrong, and consequently alter their response to something they think the interviewer wants to hear.

92 Where it has become clear that there were multiple incidents of abuse, specific questions can be used to identify and explore individual episodes. A useful technique here is to turn the child's attention to the first or last incident of abuse (these episodes are most likely to stand out in the child's mind as distinct events) and ask the child to describe it fully from beginning to end. Once marked, this incident can be given a unique label and then be used as a reference point for accessing memories of other (subsequent/prior) incidents (see APPENDIX A for examples). Interviewers should note that this technique might not be so beneficial with very young children. Their understanding of temporal terms such as "the first time", "the last time" is often limited at this stage of development.

Closed questions

93 Closed questions provide the child with only a limited number of response options, usually "yes", "no" or "don't know". When used inappropriately, such questions tend to yield less accurate information.

Example : "Was anyone else in the house when this happened?"

94 Children are less likely to say "I don't know" to a closed question and more likely to guess or be misled by the interviewer. Thus, interviewers must take care if using closed questions and should always remember to follow immediately with open-ended questions for a spontaneous provision of information.

Leading questions

95 A leading question is one which is presented in such a way that it suggests a certain answer to the child or one which makes assumptions about facts yet to be confirmed.

Example: "So then he touched you, didn't he?"

96 Whether a question is construed as leading or not depends on a number of factors: e.g. the nature of the question; whether the child has already mentioned, for the above example, any physical contact or not; the tone of the interviewer's voice when asking the question and so on.

97 It may be more useful to draw a distinction, and create two categories: "leading" and " misleading" questions. The former can lead a child to give a correct response whereas the latter leads a child to give an incorrect response. To return to the above example, if the child had actually been touched then an affirmative response would be a true response. However, if no physical contact had taken place yet the child gave an affirmative response, the nature of questioning could be directed away from true events. Note the previous reference to confirmation bias ( paragraph 30 Number and duration of interviews). The danger of such questioning is that interviewers rarely know the answer, therefore cannot be sure whether they have asked a leading or misleading question.

98 A misleading question can also be based on an incorrect interpretation/ reiteration of what the child has said. An example would be where a child mentions getting into a blue car with a stranger and the interviewer then asks, "Tell me more about this green car", to which the child responds with a fuller description. Such questioning might jeopardise the credibility of the child's statement.

99 Despite the dangers, leading questions continue to be used during investigative interviews. A leading question that is based on something a child said during a free narrative report may be OK. A response to a leading question based on an interviewer's hunch is not to be trusted. Leading questions, if ever used during an interview, should be immediately followed with an open-ended prompt to get a free response. Out of the four main question types, leading questions are most likely to be challenged in court. Thus, any use of this type of question should be well thought out, planned and justified.

Content of questions

100 Interviewers should aim to keep questions as unambiguous, simple and as short as possible. They should avoid the following:

• Double negatives: "Don't you remember whether you said no or not?"
• Multiple propositions: "Did you think that you would get into trouble if you didn't go along with it, or did you think that it was a cool thing to do, because you were told that all the other boys had done it?"
• Very long questions
• Questions containing legal jargon
• Abstract or hypothetical questions: "Do you think this would still have happened if...?"

101 Some of the child's own use of vocabulary may cause problems for the interviewer. Young children often over- and under extend the meaning of words. That is, they may use the term "private parts" to encompass body parts other than the genitals which are also usually covered under clothing (e.g. knees), or deny being touched but later admit to having been kissed as they consider touching to involve the hands.

102 Imprecise biological terms (e.g. "front bottom") will need to be explained - for crimes such as rape in Scot's Law, the interviewer will need to know exactly what parts of anatomy were involved. Moreover, if a child uses certain sexual terms during their statement, the interviewer cannot assume that the child fully understands them. The child might simply have overheard adults using them or come across them in magazines, without ever finding out their true meaning. Where there is ambiguity, the interviewer should gently ask for clarification.

Note: Demonstrations of body parts involved in sexual acts should be made on an anatomical diagram for example, not on the child's or the interviewer's body. However, children may spontaneously point to their body. Where this happens, the child should then be asked to confirm the location by pointing to it on the diagram.

103 Clarification is also important when a child's statement contains fantastical or bizarre elements, e.g. the mention of "glue" during a sexual act. Interviewers should ask, "Where did the glue come from?" It is not unknown for bizarre elements to turn out to be quite rational, e.g. "glue" meaning semen.

104 It should be highlighted that children sometimes reveal new and different information across statements and interviewers. It is important to bear in mind that differences are not necessarily inaccuracies. Where the differences are inconsistencies, then these should be probed after the child has finished their free narrative and interviewers must take care not to imply that the child is lying.

Closure phase

105 It is essential to end every interview properly with a closure phase, even if an interview has had to be terminated prematurely or no disclosure has been made. The following features should be included:

• The lead interviewer should summarise (using the child's language as much as possible) the important evidential points in the child's statement, confirming that those aspects have been understood correctly.
• The lead interviewer should check with the second interviewer whether any additional questions or clarifications are required.
• The child should be asked if they have any questions they want answered, or something else which they wish to add.
• The child should be informed of what, if anything, will happen next, e.g. the likelihood of a further interview. Explanations should be honest and realistic but appropriate for the child's age and level of understanding. Commonly asked questions include "Will [the alleged offender] go to prison?" Interviewers should be prepared to answer such questions but avoid making promises that cannot be kept.
• The child and/or their guardian should be provided with a contact name and number plus advice on where they can seek help. This should include a contact from the police or social work but some children and/or their families may also need further support from voluntary agencies or professional counsellors or therapists. ⁸
• Interviewers should thank the child for their time and effort - but take care not to thank the child for disclosure - and show that they have taken the child's account seriously.
• Interviewers should inform the child of the possibility of further interviews.
• Finally, children should be given time to compose themselves. The main aim of closure is that the child leaves the interview in a positive frame of mind, not distressed. Neutral topics, such as those covered in the Rapport Phase, can be discussed in order to help achieve this state.

106 As a reminder, no child should ever be made to feel that they have failed or disappointed the interviewers if they do not impart any details of evidential value during the interview.

Debriefing and further interviews

107 Once the interview and an agreed joint record of its proceedings has been completed, a debriefing session should be arranged between the interviewers and the Senior Social Worker and/or Police Supervisor overseeing the investigation. The debriefing session is an important part of the process of joint planning and management of child protection enquiries. The findings from the interview and any further action can be discussed and decided upon. This may include the need for another interview and/or arrangements for a medical examination. The debriefing session can also provide an opportunity to identify operational and practice issues that require to be addressed externally to the enquiry (e.g. training needs, procedural gaps, etc.). As with the planning meeting, a record of the debriefing session and all decisions made should be taken and copies kept by both agencies.

108 Although the joint approach advocated here aims to reduce the number of times a child is interviewed, there are several reasons why further interviews may be necessary:

• when a child who did not disclose for whatever reason in the initial interview is now willing and able to disclose;
• when new information comes to light from sources other than the child;
• when, in the course of the initial interview, new allegations emerge (therefore, wider implications) and extra time is needed to investigate them fully;
• when the child and interviewers have not built up a good rapport;
• when the interviewer has not yet gained the child's trust;
• when the child is currently too distressed to talk.

109 When such circumstances arise, the different agencies should decide whether conducting another interview would be in the best interests of the child.

110 The "one interview" rule is not set in stone, but interviewers should question whether more interviews are necessary and appropriate. The guidance set out here should be followed each time an interview with a child is conducted.

Props

111 Anatomical diagrams can be useful in certain circumstances where a child needs to demonstrate an action or body part to clarify something they said (children should never be asked to use their own bodies to demonstrate such things).

112 Research raises several concerns about the reliability of evidence gathered with the use of anatomically-correct dolls during investigative interviews with children, especially very young children. Toys and other props should not be used during the information gathering phase of an investigative interview. Props should never be used in conjunction with leading questions nor should their use be instigated by the interviewer. Research (e.g. Bruck et al., 1995; Stewart & Stewart, (1996) shows dolls and toys used in this way may increase inaccuracies especially in younger children.

113 It is acceptable for children to hold on to items that they themselves have brought along to the interview as comforters, e.g. "safety" blanket. This also includes dolls or stuffed animals but interviewers should not use these as props nor try to interpret the child's behaviour with the toy in the context of their evidence.

114 Along with all props, any drawings made during, or brought along to, the interview should be recorded in the interviewer's notes. Particular reference should be made to when and how the prop/drawing was introduced and how it was used. At the end of the interview, any drawings should be signed and dated on the reverse side by both interviewers and retained by the police as productions.

Other interviewing techniques

115 The procedures and protocol set out in this guidance are not the only methods available for interviewing child witnesses. Other established methods of interviewing, e.g. the Cognitive Interview, can be very effective at eliciting accurate and detailed responses in an investigative context. However, to apply these techniques requires a great deal of skill and practice. If they are used without sufficient training they can increase inaccuracies.

« Previous | Contents | Next »