Does the Way We Teach Children Interview Ground Rules Impact the Number of Details They Provide?

<p>Ground rules are instructions commonly provided to children in investigative interviews. The ultimate aim of ground rules is to help children provide accurate accounts and resist acquiescence. Therefore, it is no surprise that research into ground rule use has so far focused on the impact ground rule training has on the accuracy of children’s reports. Yet, the amount of information a child provides is also important when it comes to legal processes ensued when a child reports abuse. This study is unique as it focuses on how ground rule training impacts the amount of information a child provides and whether this varies as a result of more intense training. So far, there is little research available that systematically evaluates multiple training methods within one study. The current study involves a condition with no ground rule training, one with the standard training often suggested in interview protocols, and two more intense training methods informed by relevant learning theories. Children aged between 5 and 12-years-old experienced a live event at their school and were interviewed about this event after a delay of approximately 2-weeks. Results did not support the hypotheses that ground rule training method would impact the number of unique details provided by children and that this relationship would vary across age. Results also showed that children’s accuracy responding to questions used to elicit ground rule responses was not related to the number of details provided. A larger sample is necessary to investigate whether the findings of the current study are accurate when the analyses are satisfactorily powered. Currently, this study suggests that more intense ground rule training does not compromise the richness of children’s reports. Findings also indicate that children’s acquiescence to suggestive, unanswerable or confusing questions is not related to the amount of information they provide when asked answerable questions. </p>

Does the Way We Teach Children Interview Ground Rules Impact the Number of Details They Provide?

<p>Ground rules are instructions commonly provided to children in investigative interviews. The ultimate aim of ground rules is to help children provide accurate accounts and resist acquiescence. Therefore, it is no surprise that research into ground rule use has so far focused on the impact ground rule training has on the accuracy of children’s reports. Yet, the amount of information a child provides is also important when it comes to legal processes ensued when a child reports abuse. This study is unique as it focuses on how ground rule training impacts the amount of information a child provides and whether this varies as a result of more intense training. So far, there is little research available that systematically evaluates multiple training methods within one study. The current study involves a condition with no ground rule training, one with the standard training often suggested in interview protocols, and two more intense training methods informed by relevant learning theories. Children aged between 5 and 12-years-old experienced a live event at their school and were interviewed about this event after a delay of approximately 2-weeks. Results did not support the hypotheses that ground rule training method would impact the number of unique details provided by children and that this relationship would vary across age. Results also showed that children’s accuracy responding to questions used to elicit ground rule responses was not related to the number of details provided. A larger sample is necessary to investigate whether the findings of the current study are accurate when the analyses are satisfactorily powered. Currently, this study suggests that more intense ground rule training does not compromise the richness of children’s reports. Findings also indicate that children’s acquiescence to suggestive, unanswerable or confusing questions is not related to the amount of information they provide when asked answerable questions. </p>

Ground Rules in Forensic Interviews: Should We Make Practice More Applied?

<p>Introducing ground rules is recommended in many forensic interview best-practice protocols, but children do not always use them when they should. There is not yet a consensus in the literature on the best way to teach the rules, and many of the practice methods researched are not feasible for practitioners. Additionally, increased intensity of practice can lead to adverse effects on other aspects of child testimony too. We draw on cognitive learning literature to understand how to better facilitate ground rule use amongst children in forensic interviews. Ninety-three children between the ages of 5-12 from Greater Wellington region, New Zealand, participated in a staged event at their school and were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (Lamb et al., 2018) 2-3 weeks later. At the interview, children practised the ground rules ‘I don’t know’ (IDK), ‘I don’t understand’ (IDU) and ‘Correct me’ (CM) in one of four ways which varied by the degree of match between the practice and interview context. Children were asked difficult questions designed to elicit the rules throughout the interview, and coding children’s accuracy of reporting also examined the broader effects of practice method and rule use. No significant effects were found between the practice method and responses to difficult questions for the IDK and CM rules. The Control condition, which received no ground rules instruction or practice, was significantly different to the other practice conditions for the IDU rule. In addition to this, there was no significant effect of practice method or competency at using ground rules on children’s general accuracy about the event. Several possible explanations for this pattern of results are explored in the discussion section.</p>

Ground Rules in Forensic Interviews: Should We Make Practice More Applied?

<p>Introducing ground rules is recommended in many forensic interview best-practice protocols, but children do not always use them when they should. There is not yet a consensus in the literature on the best way to teach the rules, and many of the practice methods researched are not feasible for practitioners. Additionally, increased intensity of practice can lead to adverse effects on other aspects of child testimony too. We draw on cognitive learning literature to understand how to better facilitate ground rule use amongst children in forensic interviews. Ninety-three children between the ages of 5-12 from Greater Wellington region, New Zealand, participated in a staged event at their school and were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (Lamb et al., 2018) 2-3 weeks later. At the interview, children practised the ground rules ‘I don’t know’ (IDK), ‘I don’t understand’ (IDU) and ‘Correct me’ (CM) in one of four ways which varied by the degree of match between the practice and interview context. Children were asked difficult questions designed to elicit the rules throughout the interview, and coding children’s accuracy of reporting also examined the broader effects of practice method and rule use. No significant effects were found between the practice method and responses to difficult questions for the IDK and CM rules. The Control condition, which received no ground rules instruction or practice, was significantly different to the other practice conditions for the IDU rule. In addition to this, there was no significant effect of practice method or competency at using ground rules on children’s general accuracy about the event. Several possible explanations for this pattern of results are explored in the discussion section.</p>

PEMERIKSAAN KEABSAHAN PENETAPAN TERSANGKA OLEH PRAPERADILAN DALAM KONSTELASI PANCASILA

ABSTRACTIndonesian supremacy of law principle is the ground rule to control the democracy flow in society. In order to do so, Pretrial institution is introduced. Pretrial, under Constitution Court Session Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, also has a jurisdiction in examining suspect naming procedure by investigator. Despite being regulated, there was found in which judge made decision to name a suspect, whereas the provision instructed the judge to only take measure and examine suspect naming by investigator, therefore undermining given regulation. This conceptual research conducted under normative method. Historical, grammatical, concept and case approach also applied. The result demonstrates that evaluating suspect naming could support and undermine Pancasila simultaneously.Keywords : pretrial, Pancasila, suspect naming, democracy INTISARIPraperadilan hadir sebagai bentuk pengawas terhadap peran penyidik dan penuntut umum, dalam hal ini, berdasarkan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 menambahkan kewenangan salah satunya untuk menguji keabsahan penetapan tersangka. Wujud kontrol yang demikian ternyata tidak sepenuhnya diterapkan oleh hakim dengan baik. Peristiwa yang menjadi bukti luputnya penerapan pemeriksaan keabsahan tersangka salah satunya dimana hakim Praperadilan memerintahkan menetapkan tersangka, dengan demikian melampaui batas kewenangan. Metode penelitian yang dilakukan adalah normatif dengan pendekatan filosofis, gramatikal, konsep dan kasus. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa wewenang Praperadilan dalam menentukan keabsahan tersangka dapat mendukung, tetapi sekaligus dapat juga menjadi alat peruntuh demokrasi Pancasila.Kata kunci : praperadilan, Pancasila, penetapan tersangka, demokrasi