Transfer of Skills in the Context of Non‐Suggestive Investigative Interviews: Impact of Structured Interview Protocol and Feedback
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Two groups of police investigators were trained in the use of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) interview protocol. After the training, one group (n = 8) received written feedback on each interview they conducted, whereas the other group (n = 11) did not. The objective of the study was, first, to evaluate the effect of NICHD protocol implementation on the types of questions and details provided by children and, second, to evaluate the impact of post‐training feedback. Interviewees were alleged sexual abuse victims between the ages of 3 and 14 years. Application of the NICHD protocol allowed interviewers to use more open‐ended questions and to obtain more details. The results show that providing feedback significantly increased the quality of the interviews. It is recommended that the NICHD protocol be used to interview child victims and witnesses and that feedback sessions be held with interviewers. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it