Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - March 6, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8034
Date: 2009-01-23

Author:Eric G. Mart

Subject:Re: Extended Forensic Interviews

Shelly, I wouldn't do them without a darn good reason. I think it is important to remember that everyone doing CSA assessments is going to have their methodology and performance assessed with regard to the extent to which it comports with the Lamb et al NICHD protocol, and that does not included repeated interviewing. In the absence of any actually empirical proof that extended forensic assessment improves accurate recall without increasing errors, I'd avoid the practice. Eric G. Mart, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic) 311 Highlander Way Manchester, New Hampshire 03103 Ph. 603/626-0966 Fax 603/622-7012 www.psychology-law.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Jackson, Shelly L *HS To: 'Child Maltreatment Researchers' Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:13 AM Subject: Extended Forensic Interviews I would like ask the research and the practitioner communities to weigh in on a debate about extended forensic interviews (EFEs). We are in the midst of a debate in our community and I would like to hear what other communities are doing. I am familiar with the literature, but I’d like to hear researcher’s assessments of that research base. I’d also like to learn what practitioners in other communities are doing or thinking about in terms of EFEs. Thanks so much. ________________________________

Shelly, I wouldn't do them without a darn good reason. I think it is important to remember that everyone doing CSA assessments is going to have their methodology and performance assessed with regard to the extent to which it comports with the Lamb et al NICHD protocol, and that does not included repeated interviewing. In the absence of any actually empirical proof that extended forensic assessment improves accurate recall without increasing errors, I'd avoid the practice. Eric G. Mart, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic) 311 Highlander Way Manchester, New Hampshire 03103 Ph. 603/626-0966 Fax 603/622-7012 www.psychology-law.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Jackson, Shelly L *HS To: 'Child Maltreatment Researchers' Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:13 AM Subject: Extended Forensic Interviews I would like ask the research and the practitioner communities to weigh in on a debate about extended forensic interviews (EFEs). We are in the midst of a debate in our community and I would like to hear what other communities are doing. I am familiar with the literature, but I’d like to hear researcher’s assessments of that research base. I’d also like to learn what practitioners in other communities are doing or thinking about in terms of EFEs. Thanks so much. ________________________________