Abertay Research Collections >
Social & Health Sciences >
Social & Health Sciences Collection >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Repeated interviews with children who have intellectual disabilities|
|Authors: ||Cederborg, A.-C.|
La Rooy, David J.
Lamb, M. E.
|Affiliation: ||University of Abertay Dundee. School of Social and Health Sciences|
Children with intellectual disabilities
|Issue Date: ||Mar-2008|
|Type: ||Journal Article|
|Rights: ||This is the author's final version of this article. Published version (c)2008 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. The definitive version is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.
The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. You can request a copy from the author for your own research or private study. To do this email firstname.lastname@example.org and we will forward your request if the author is still at this institution.|
|Citation: ||Cederborg, A.-C., La Rooy, D. and Lamb, M.E. 2008. Repeated interviews with children who have intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 21(2): pp.103-113. Available at DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2007.00372.x|
|Abstract: ||Background We predicted that repeated interviewing would improve the informativeness of children with intellectual disabilities who were questioned in criminal investigations.
Materials The chronological ages of the 19 children, involved in 20 cases, ranged between 4.7 and 18 years (M = 10.3 years) at the time of the first alleged abuse.
Method The utterances used by interviewers to elicit information in both initial and later interviews were examined. We then assessed the substantive information provided in both interviews and compared information elicited using focused questions in the initial interview with responses about the same topic elicited using open questions in the second interview.
Results The hypothesis was supported: over 80% of the information reported in the repeated interviews was about completely new topics or was new information elaborating upon previously discussed topics. However, because the interviewing techniques were so poor in both first and second interviews, information provided in the repeated interviews may have been contaminated irrespective of the children's capacities.
Conclusion When children with intellectual disabilities are given a second chance to provide information about their abuse, they can further develop the information that they report and even provide entirely new information about their experiences. When interviewers are not specially trained in how to interview children with intellectual disabilities, we cannot assume that repeated interviews provide reliable and accurate information, however.|
|Appears in Collections:||Social & Health Sciences Collection|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.