The effects of interviewing method on children's recall

This study compares three different methods of interviewing children to determine which method helps children to provide the most accurate and complete reports of their experiences. Sixty preschool-aged children were interviewed three weeks after they participated in a play event to determine what they could remember about the experience. The children were interviewed either by a blind interviewer with no background information about the event, an interviewer who was given a written summary containing both correct and incorrect information about the event, or an interviewer who received a structured list of questions to ask but did not have preconceived biases about what occurred.; The children in the List of Questions group accurately reported more of the "main idea" of what occurred during the play event. However, they generally performed worse than the children in the other two groups when more detailed memory was assessed, producing a greater quantity of information but with reduced accuracy. It appears that the children in the List of Questions group were less accurate because their interviewers asked more leading questions. The results suggest that recall produced in response to leading questions is less accurate even if interviewers do not have preconceived biases about what occurred. Somewhat surprisingly, the children in the Written Summary group performed better than the children in the Blind and List of Questions groups on many measures, remembering more information than children in the "Blind Interviewer" group without sacrificing accuracy like the children in the List of Questions group. It appears that having preconceived biases about what occurred did not adversely affect the behavior of interviewers in the Written Summary group or the quality of the children's recall. Despite having background information about what happened, interviewers in the Written Summary group asked fewer leading questions than interviewers in the List of Questions group and asked many alternative hypotheses questions where they explored other possibilities about what occurred. The implications of these findings for how to best conduct interviews with children suspected of being abused are discussed.