You are not logged in.

A review of the impact of different types of leading interview questions on child and adult witnesses with intellectual disabilities

Bowles, Peter V. and Sharman, Stefanie J. 2013, A review of the impact of different types of leading interview questions on child and adult witnesses with intellectual disabilities, Psychiatry, psychology and law, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 205-217, doi: 10.1080/13218719.2013.803276.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title A review of the impact of different types of leading interview questions on child and adult witnesses with intellectual disabilities
Author(s) Bowles, Peter V.
Sharman, Stefanie J.ORCID iD for Sharman, Stefanie J. orcid.org/0000-0002-0635-047X
Journal name Psychiatry, psychology and law
Volume number 21
Issue number 2
Start page 205
End page 217
Total pages 13
Publisher Routledge
Place of publication Oxford, England
Publication date 2013
ISSN 1321-8719
Keyword(s) Eyewitness testimony
Intellectual disability
Leading questions
Summary Children and adults with intellectual disabilities have traditionally been considered poor witnesses because they are easily misled and produce less accurate information in interviews when compared with individuals without intellectual disabilities. However, witnesses’ levels of accuracy depend on the types of questions that they are asked, such as whether they are open or closed and whether they contain misleading information. In the current systematic review, we examined the literature investigating the different types of misleading questions commonly used in interviews, and their influence on the memories of adults and children with and without an intellectual disability. Thirteen articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed. It was found that, compared with other question types, open and closed questions that presumed certain information to be true elicited the greatest number of errors in children and adults with intellectual disabilities compared with other question types. These findings reinforce the notion that the onus is on interviewers – particularly when interviewing vulnerable witnesses – to avoid leading questions that presume information that may not be true.
Language eng
DOI 10.1080/13218719.2013.803276
Field of Research 170104 Forensic Psychology
Socio Economic Objective 970117 Expanding Knowledge in Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2013, Taylor & Francis
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30054946

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Psychology
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 266 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 14 Aug 2013, 15:25:32 EST by Barb Lavelle

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.