Adherence to the step-wise interview protocol by trained RCMP investigators during forensic sexual abuse interviews with children

The purpose of this study was to determine, using descriptive statistics, whether investigators who were trained to use the Step-Wise Interview during forensic interviews with children (a) adhered to the structure of that protocol, (b) used inappropriate interviewing techniques, and (c) used general and specific questions to elicit information. Fifteen videotaped interviews and their associated transcripts were analyzed. Eight RCMP members conducted 12 interviews with children under 8-years-old and 3 with children 8- to 12-years-old. Only initial interviews with children whose cases were closed were included in the sample. Results showed that coverage of the key elements prescribed in the protocol varied between the two age groups and between interview status (i.e., No Disclosure or Disclosure of sexual abuse). The key elements associated with opening the interviews were well covered; however, the rapport building key elements were covered by less than half of the investigators in the No Disclosure interviews, with higher coverage in the Disclosure interviews. Few attempts were made to elicit non-abuse life event free narratives from the younger children, and no such attempts were made with the older children. Both general and specific questions were used when introducing the topic of abuse, but specific questions were used more often with the younger children. When abuse was disclosed, the majority of investigators attempted to elicit an abuse-related narrative. Most investigators used a body diagram, and when there were discussions related to body parts and functioning, all of the investigators used the same terminology as the younger children, and the majority did so with the older children. The key elements associated with closing the interview were poorly covered. With the younger children, the percentage of time spent opening the interviews, building rapport, and discussing body parts and functioning was similar, regardless of interview status. In the No Disclosure interviews, more time was spent introducing the topic of abuse. There was time spent asking specific abuse-related questions in both types of interviews, but, as expected, in order to clarify and extend the abuse-related information, there was more time spent asking specific questions in the Disclosure interviews. In both types of interviews, the time spent on topics unrelated to the protocol was greater than the time spent in any of the prescribed interview steps, and the least amount of time was spent closing the interviews. In general, most of the interview steps were introduced in the correct StepWise Interview order. However, some investigators skipped some steps, some performed steps that they should not have, and some steps were introduced out of order. Misleading and leading statements and questions rarely occurred, which is consistent with the goal of eliciting uncontaminated testimony. Regardless of interview status, during the first and second halves of the interviews, investigators probed for information almost as often as they made some other kind of statement. In both types of interviews, very few general questions were used during either half of the interviews, and the specific questions used were primarily of the wh_ and yes/no types. In summary, adherence to the Step-Wise Interview protocol by the trained investigators was good in many respects. However, according to the literature on effective child interviewing, many of the areas in which adherence was low are areas in which adherence seems most crucial. Failure to cover some of the key elements of the protocol, coupled with the high use of specific questions, increases the risk of obtaining inaccurate testimony about alleged sexual abuse events from young children.