Skip to main content



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

Browse or Search All Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages (10,000+). The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - September 14, 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: 8037
Date: 2009-01-24

Author:Thomas D. Lyon

Subject:RE: Extended Forensic Interviews

I’m not sure it’s true that repeated interviewing is inconsistent with the NICHD protocol. Michael Lamb and his colleagues in his recently published book on the protocol (2008) have this to say: “Considerably more research on second (or later) interviews is needed to further clarify the benefits and risks of repeated interviewing, but we know enough already to state with assurance that blanket ‘one-interview only’ rules do not serve the best interests of either child victims or justice (Larooy, Lamb, & Pipe, under review).” (p. 269) Lamb and colleagues (2008) discuss their study examining non-disclosing children, and note that when there are clear signs that a child is non-cooperative or reticent, ending the interview and interviewing on a subsequent occasion may be indicated (p. 216). I believe that Larooy has reviewed the research on the ways in which repeated interviewing can elicit new information. Along the same lines see: AU: A.-C. Cederborg, D. La Rooy, M. E. Lamb TI: Repeated Interviews with Children Who have Intellectual Disabilities SO: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities VL: 21 NO: 2 PG: 103-113 YR: 2008 In reviewing research on disclosure among children with gonorrhea (for whom there is a very high likelihood of abuse independently of disclosure), I found that several studies found a substantial percentage of children ultimately disclosed abuse even though they had denied abuse in the first interview. A copy of the paper can be downloaded at http://works.bepress.com/thomaslyon/4/ And Goodman and Quas, in the latest issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, emphasize that “several studies reveal increased accuracy with repeated interviewing, even when the interviews include misleading questions” A copy of the paper can be requested from Dr. Quas (at jquas@uci.edu). I suspect that most everyone would agree that repeated bad interviews are bad. But if one is faithfully following the NICHD protocol, or at least avoiding suggestive questions as much as possible, then there is room for reasonable practitioners to disagree. ________________________________ From: bounce-3494722-6833170@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-3494722-6833170@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Eric G. Mart Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:05 PM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers 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. ________________________________

I’m not sure it’s true that repeated interviewing is inconsistent with the NICHD protocol. Michael Lamb and his colleagues in his recently published book on the protocol (2008) have this to say: “Considerably more research on second (or later) interviews is needed to further clarify the benefits and risks of repeated interviewing, but we know enough already to state with assurance that blanket ‘one-interview only’ rules do not serve the best interests of either child victims or justice (Larooy, Lamb, & Pipe, under review).” (p. 269) Lamb and colleagues (2008) discuss their study examining non-disclosing children, and note that when there are clear signs that a child is non-cooperative or reticent, ending the interview and interviewing on a subsequent occasion may be indicated (p. 216). I believe that Larooy has reviewed the research on the ways in which repeated interviewing can elicit new information. Along the same lines see: AU: A.-C. Cederborg, D. La Rooy, M. E. Lamb TI: Repeated Interviews with Children Who have Intellectual Disabilities SO: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities VL: 21 NO: 2 PG: 103-113 YR: 2008 In reviewing research on disclosure among children with gonorrhea (for whom there is a very high likelihood of abuse independently of disclosure), I found that several studies found a substantial percentage of children ultimately disclosed abuse even though they had denied abuse in the first interview. A copy of the paper can be downloaded at http://works.bepress.com/thomaslyon/4/ And Goodman and Quas, in the latest issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, emphasize that “several studies reveal increased accuracy with repeated interviewing, even when the interviews include misleading questions” A copy of the paper can be requested from Dr. Quas (at jquasuci.edu). I suspect that most everyone would agree that repeated bad interviews are bad. But if one is faithfully following the NICHD protocol, or at least avoiding suggestive questions as much as possible, then there is room for reasonable practitioners to disagree. ________________________________ From: bounce-3494722-6833170list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-3494722-6833170list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Eric G. Mart Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:05 PM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers 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. ________________________________