Loading the library…
child witnesses & forensic interviewing
The operative claimStructured forensic-interview protocols built on open-ended prompts — canonically the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol — reliably improve child interviews: interviewers use several times more free-recall invitations and far fewer suggestive and option-posing questions, children provide more (and more central) information, and ground-truth studies show the added information comes at no cost to accuracy.
The field regards structured, open-prompt interviewing as the solved part of the child-testimony problem: across countries and agencies, trained protocol use multiplies free-recall invitations, halves or better the risky question types, and increases what children report — with experimental ground-truth work showing no accuracy penalty. The acknowledged boundaries are the youngest children, where informativeness gains shrink, and implementation, where quality decays without supervision and feedback.
Applies to investigative interviews of children (roughly ages 3–14) about alleged abuse or witnessed events, conducted by trained interviewers using structured protocols (NICHD Standard and Revised, and closely derived guidelines). Benefits for children's informativeness are weakest for preschoolers; interviewer gains require real training and decay without ongoing feedback and supervision.
Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Esplin PW, 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.
Systematic review · alleged child abuse victims in forensic interviews
Controlled studies repeatedly show that interview quality "reliably and dramatically improves" when interviewers use the NICHD Protocol: more free-recall invitations, fewer option-posing and suggestive prompts, and more information elicited by recall — the question types most likely to be accurate. As of the review, no other interviewing technique had been proven similarly effective. The canonical statement of the structured-protocol evidence base.
Bearing on this claim: Canonical program review: protocol use "reliably and dramatically" improves interview quality; no other technique similarly proven.
doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW, Horowitz D (2000). Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect.
Observational · N = 105 · alleged child sexual abuse victims (matched field interviews)
With the same investigators before and after protocol adoption, protocol interviews contained more open-ended prompts (including before the first option-posing utterance), elicited more details via open invitations and fewer via focused questions — enhancing the likely accuracy of the information obtained. The foundational matched field demonstration that the protocol changes interviewer behavior, not just training-room performance.
Bearing on this claim: Matched within-interviewer field comparison: same investigators used more open prompts and elicited more free-recall information after protocol adoption.
doi.org/10.1016/s0145-2134(00)00137-x4 supporting verified sources
Field studies cannot verify the truth of real allegations (hence the analogue evidence carries the accuracy claim, at modest sample size and for staged, non-abusive events); the formal meta-analysis pools only five studies (the replication base is broader); informativeness gains are weakest for preschoolers; and effects depend on genuine training with ongoing feedback — protocol adoption on paper does not produce them. The protocol improves elicitation; it does not adjudicate credibility.
Benia LR, Hauck-Filho N, Dillenburg M, Stein LM (2015). The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse.
Meta-analysis · children in forensic interviews
Protocol interviews showed large advantages: more invitations (g = 1.60), fewer option-posing (g = −.95) and suggestive prompts (g = −.63), and children provided more central details in response to invitations (g = .90). The advantage held for preschool subsamples on interviewer behavior (more invitations, fewer risky prompts), though children's informativeness gains were weaker for preschoolers — the protocol's known age limitation.
Bearing on this claim: Meta-analysis: invitations g=1.60, option-posing g=−.95, suggestive g=−.63, central details g=.90; weaker informativeness gains for preschoolers.
doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.1006749Brown DA, Lamb ME, Lewis C, Pipe ME, Orbach Y, Wolfman M (2013). The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: An analogue study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
Experimental · N = 128 · young children (analogue event, ground truth known)
With ground truth known, open invitation prompts elicited MORE detailed responses than focused prompts WITHOUT reducing accuracy; children were highly accurate overall, and the errors that occurred were mostly peripheral and disproportionately elicited by directive and yes/no questions rather than invitations. The accuracy evidence field studies cannot provide: the protocol's open-prompt architecture gains information at no accuracy cost.
Bearing on this claim: Ground-truth analogue (N=128): open invitations gain detail at no accuracy cost; errors concentrate under directive/yes-no questioning.
doi.org/10.1037/a0035143