File(s) not publicly available

How well does the gudjonsson suggestibility scale for children, version 2 predict the recall of false details among children with and without intellectual disabilities?

journal contribution
posted on 01.09.2007, 00:00 authored by K Miles, Martine Powell, G Gignac, Don ThomsonDon Thomson
Purpose. This study explored the effectiveness of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale for Children, version 2 in predicting the tendency of older school-aged children (with and without intellectual disabilities) to generate errors in an independent suggestibility paradigm.

Method. Sixty-nine children with an intellectual disability (aged 9-14 years) and 50 mainstream children matched for chronological age participated in a 30-minute magic show that was staged at their school. Three days later, the children participated in a separate biasing interview that provided seven true and seven false details about the magic show. The following day, the children participated in a second interview where they were required to recall the magic show in their own words and answer a series of cued-recall questions. Between 1 and 2 weeks later, the children were administered the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale-2 (GSS-2).

Results. While there was no significant association between performance on the GSS-2 and the independent suggestibility paradigm for the children with an intellectual disability, the chronological age-matched children's yield scores predicted their reporting of both false-new details and false-interviewer suggestions for the independent event.

Conclusion. When predicting children's recall of false details, the GSS-2 appears to be more useful with mainstream school-aged children compared with children who have an intellectual disability.

History

Journal

Legal and criminological psychology

Volume

12

Issue

2

Pagination

217 - 232

Publisher

British Psychological Society

Location

Leicester, England

ISSN

1355-3259

eISSN

2044-8333

Language

eng

Publication classification

C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Copyright notice

2007 The British Psychological Society