Adherence to the step-wise interview protocol by trained RCMP investigators during forensic sexual abuse interviews with children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,234 | 0,335 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».