Michael E. Lamb is Professor of Psychology at the University of Cambridge, where he moved in 2004 after serving 17 years as Head of the Section on Social and Emotional Development at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in Bethesda, MD. It was here that he and his colleagues launched the program of research and developed some of the interview procedures outlined in this book.

Deirdre A. Brown is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the Victoria University of Wellington. After completing her PhD and training in clinical psychology at the University of Otago, she began a postdoctoral fellowship at NICHD and the University of Lancaster, where she led the research on children with intellectual disabilities described in this book. She was appointed to her current position in 2007.

Irit Hershkowitz is Professor of Social Work at the University of Haifa. After completing her PhD at the University of Haifa, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship at NICHD, where she played a crucial role in the development of the Investigative Interview Protocol described in this book. She returned to the University of Haifa in 1994 and has since spearheaded efforts to evaluate and improve the training of investigative interviewers.

Yael Orbach worked as a Senior Researcher in the Section on Social and Emotional Development of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for nearly 15 years. After retiring from her position as Staff Scientist in 2006, Dr. Orbach continued to conduct collaborative research with the other co‐authors, focusing on the application of cognitive and developmental research to criminal investigation of children until 2015. She was integrally involved in the development of the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol and participated in much of the research on forensic interviewing described in this book.

Phillip W. Esplin has worked as a forensic psychologist based in Phoenix, AZ for more than 40 years. After interviewing alleged victims and evaluating interviews by other professionals, he began conducting field research designed to enhance the quality of practice and became a senior consultant to the NICHD Protocol research team in 1989. In that role, he was integrally involved in the development and evaluation of the Investigative Interview Protocol described in this book.

The Wiley Series in the Psychology of Crime, Policing, and the Law publishes both single and multi‐authored monographs and edited reviews of important and emerging areas of contemporary research. The purpose of this series is not merely to present research findings in a clear and readable form, but also to bring out their implications for both practice and policy. Books in this series are useful not only to psychologists, but also to all those involved in crime detection and prevention, child protection, policing, and judicial processes.

Recent years have seen a welcome increase in the number of successful prosecutions for child sexual or physical abuse in countries which employ the adversarial principles of English common law. This increase has been facilitated by the advent of video‐ and later, digital‐recording of investigative interviews of alleged victims conducted by trained police officers or social workers. In the United Kingdom and other common‐law countries, such interviews may be played to the jury at trial as the sole or principal element of the prosecution case. A properly conducted interview, where the child describes in a consistent and detailed manner the circumstances and nature of the offence allegedly committed by the defendant, can provide powerful evidence against an adult who might otherwise escape justice. However, as with all witness statements, children can misunderstand or be misled in their evidence, risking miscarriages of justice (Ceci & Bruck, 1995).

In the first edition of Tell Me What Happened (2008), Lamb, Hershkovitz, Orbach, and Esplin argued that such injustices arose primarily from poor investigative practice: In particular, research showed that interviewers used few open‐ended questions, relying instead on closed or specific questions. They argued that open‐ended questions (e.g., “And then what happened?”) encourage children to actively shape and detail their own account of events, while specific (“What color was the bedspread?”) or closed (“Were you on your back or on your front?’) questions induced a passivity and a greater readiness to agree with the interviewer’s preconceptions. To address this concern, Michael Lamb, the late Kathy Sternberg, and others at the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in the United States fashioned a new interviewing procedure: the NICHD Protocol. The Protocol drew upon the principal authors’ extensive knowledge of children’s cognitive and social development and placed the need for children to give their own account as the central requirement. This was best fostered by the use of open‐ended questions by interviewers. This style of discourse ran counter to everyday carer‐child interactions and needed to be laboriously learned and practiced if it was to be maintained consistently in the interview room. The book summarizes the evidence for the effectiveness of the Protocol, drawing upon both experimental and field studies conducted in different countries and its superiority to other current interviewing techniques in eliciting detailed and forensically useful content from child complainants.

The first edition of Tell Me What Happened proved to be a popular and influential guide for practitioners and researchers alike and has generated a good deal of research and comment, not merely from the original research team, but from others who have been stimulated by the issues it raised. It has remained the primary source of guidance outside government publications for practitioners and professionals involved in child protection. The new edition which features the same writing team, with the addition of Deirdre A. Brown, summarizes much of this new information and features a major revision to the original Protocol: the additional consideration of emotional and motivational factors, which experience has shown can influence whether an abused child will fully disclose the nature of any abuse and the identity of the abuser. In making these additions, the Revised Protocol mirrors a wider movement within memory research to complement purely cognitive influences with consideration of social and affective factors as determinants of recall (e.g. Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007; Harris, Rasmussen, & Berntsen, 2014).

This new emphasis has emerged from recent research on interviewing reluctant witnesses and also provides a more comprehensive understanding of the issues faced by professionals when interviewing very young children, and those with developmental issues, including autistic spectrum disorders, which, as the authors note, are all disproportionately represented among victims of abuse. As with the original, this new book is written with child protection professionals as well as scholars in mind and offers advice and opinions drawn from actual investigative interviews as well as academic research. Like the original, the Revised Protocol requires interviewers to maintain a rigorous program of refresher training, monitoring, and feedback in order to ensure their continuing adherence to protocol requirements (Lamb, 2016). Police Child Protection Units in England and Wales who wish to adopt this new tool must fight for adequate funding to support its use against the demands of other policing priorities in a climate of ever‐shrinking budgets.

Professor Lamb’s continuing contribution to psychology and society in general and the field of investigative interviewing in particular has been internationally recognized: In 2015 he achieved a rare double when the American Psychological Society honored him with both their “Distinguished contribution to psychology in the public interest” award and the “Distinguished award for the application of psychology.” Along with his co‐authors, this new book represents a scholarly and ambitious attempt to make a difference to the general quality of interviews received by the courts and minimize the risks of miscarriages of justice, for victim or defendant. It deserves to be read by all practitioners involved in child protection, whether as investigators, judges, or lawyers.

REFERENCES

1. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion , 7, 336–353.
3. Harris, C. B., Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2014). The functions of autobiographical memory: An integrative approach. Memory , 22, 559–581.
4. Lamb, M. E. (2016). Difficulties translating research on forensic interview practices to practitioners: Finding water, leading horses, but can we get them to drink? American Psychologist , 71, 710–718.

When Tell Me What Happened first appeared in 2008, it provided a comprehensive overview of the literature on the frailties and strengths of young victim witnesses. After summarizing the results of numerous experimental and field studies, we described how a careful examination of those findings could inform practice and introduced a structured interviewing guide, the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol, which had been successfully employed in several jurisdictions.

A decade later, our collective understanding of these issues had grown so dramatically that a revision of the book seemed necessary. Indeed, this revision is a completely new book, written with the involvement of a new author. It not only reviews the topics covered in the first edition but also incorporates a myriad of relevant findings published since the first edition went to press. This means that the book provides a comprehensive survey of both classic and new research informing best practice interviewing and reviews more recent studies exploring the utility and effectiveness of the Protocol.

Whereas the Protocol initially emphasized cognitive factors affecting the retrieval and reporting of experienced events, recent research has focused on the emotional and motivational factors that affect the willingness to disclose abuse and describe it in detail. Accordingly, this book introduces and explains the Revised Protocol, which has been developed, tested, validated, and implemented by the authors and their colleagues since publication of the first edition.

The Revised Protocol is designed to help interviewers establish the cognitive and emotional conditions that together maximize the likelihood that abused children will disclose and describe their experiences of maltreatment when formally interviewed. The revised version of Tell Me What Happened describes the Revised Protocol, as well as the research on which it is based, and shows how its use affects the behavior of interviewers and suspected victims.

Tell Me What Happened also includes a summary of recent research on the eyewitness capacities of children with intellectual and learning difficulties, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and other vulnerabilities. As we show, there is growing evidence that the Protocol and Revised Protocol are well‐suited to guide investigative interviews of such individuals, who are disproportionately likely to be victimized.

We also review research on the utility and risks associated with the widespread use of the various props and tools that are being used very frequently in the absence of a thorough understanding of what effects they might have. In general, as we show, there is little evidence that these tools help interviewers obtain evidence that could not be obtained in the course of well‐structured verbal interviews, conducted in accordance with the guidelines summarized earlier in the book.

Tell Me What Happened, like the first edition, has been written with practitioners in mind. We have made considerable efforts to ensure that our discussion is readily accessible to practitioners in the field—particularly social workers, agency staff, and police officers—as well as to academics and researchers. Although we pay close attention to the scholarly research literature, we do so in order to ensure that the advice and guidance we provide for interviewers is grounded in a thorough understanding of what we know about investigators’ characteristics and needs as well as children’s tendencies, strengths, and limitations. Our goal in writing this book is to foster improved practice, thereby ensuring that young and vulnerable victims of abuse can be protected from further harm while just outcomes are pursued for those who have maltreated them.

In writing this book, we have benefited from insights and observations made by countless professionals and researchers, as well as from feedback from the many practitioners whose own interview experiences have informed both our research and the continued development and optimization of the Investigative Interview Protocol we describe in the book. Researchers’ contributions are recognized in citations throughout the text; here we acknowledge and thank the many unsung practitioners without whose tireless efforts this book would not have been possible.

We are proud of this book, and hope that readers will find it as useful as colleagues found the first edition.

A mother contacts Child Protective Services, concerned about a comment her daughter, Sarah (3 years old), made during bath time. Sarah pointed to her vagina and said “Daddy does that to me”.. Sarah’s parents recently separated, and her father lives out of town, only seeing her one weekend a month. Sarah’s class has recently been working through a trial of an educational model about “good touch, bad touch.” When Sarah was asked during an investigative interview what she was there to talk about she replied, “Mummy is mad because Daddy rubbed me there and that’s bad touch.”

Ben (4 years) recently developed an infection around his bottom. During examination his doctor noted that Ben appeared to have some partially healed abrasions that might be consistent with abuse. During the rapport building stage of an investigative interview Ben talked about his interest in pirates. During the substantive phase Ben told the interviewer that his friend Joey (8 years) “stabbed him in the butt with his sword and then I punched him in the face and he died.”

Theresa (6 years) lives with her mother and stepfather (Shane). She often stays up late with them and falls asleep on the couch while they watch television. Two weekends a month Theresa stays with her father (Steve), stepmother (Melissa), and stepsister (Molly—4 years). Melissa became concerned when she observed Theresa playing with two dolls, one on top of the other, saying “see Molly, this is how you show someone you love them, this is how you are a real special girl.” Melissa asked Theresa how she knew that, and Theresa replied “I’m Shane’s special girl.” Melissa told Theresa that grownups should not love children like that and she needed to tell her father that Shane was playing with her the wrong way. An investigation was initiated.

Imagine you were to interview Sarah, Ben, or Theresa to investigate the concerns raised. What might you be wondering about? Perhaps how well children can describe their experiences for child welfare officials or legal investigators? Or perhaps, how others’ concerns might affect how children behave in an interview? Or even whether the inclusion of highly improbable details (e.g., a claim about punching someone in the face and killing them, in the absence of a dead body) renders the entire account unreliable. These vignettes highlight just a few of the many challenges that practitioners and researchers working in the area of child maltreatment investigation must grapple with. Children’s ability to provide detailed, coherent and reliable accounts of their experiences may also be evaluated by lawyers (e.g., considering what aspects of a case might be subject to challenge), judges, and jury members, all of whom may also be wondering about children’s ability to provide reliable eyewitness testimony.

In this book, we update our previous review of research examining children’s testimony and of how the way children are questioned affects the quality of information they provide. We integrate the substantial body of research published in the ten years since the first edition was prepared and reflect upon questions that the field should continue to address. Although much has been learned about children’s competencies and shortcomings, the lessons remain difficult to translate effectively into practice. Amidst many international studies demonstrating the persistence of interviewing techniques that do not help children provide detailed and accurate accounts, studies continue to show that use of the evidence‐based NICHD Investigative Protocol is effective in that regard. In the following chapters, we review what research has demonstrated about young witnesses’ strengths and difficulties, the challenges that interviewers face when eliciting testimony from children, how to effectively prepare children to be interviewed, and the evidence showing how the NICHD Protocol can help interviewers conduct high quality, developmentally sensitive interviews with witnesses, especially those who are young or have additional vulnerabilities. As we explain in some detail, forensic interviews with children can be invaluable sources of information, but they should always be recognized as parts of the forensic investigation, not seen as synonymous with the investigation as a whole.

THE BACKGROUND: INTERVIEWING AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Our understanding of children’s capacities to recount their experiences has emerged from two distinct but complementary approaches to the study of eyewitness testimony. Many researchers have studied what children can tell us when interviewed in developmentally sensitive and supportive ways, whilst others have focused on how children’s accounts can be compromised by various influences, such as suggestive questioning and exposure to misinformation. Together, the resultant knowledge about the conditions which foster accurate responding, and conversely, those that promote false responding has shown us how to establish optimal conditions so that children can describe their experiences in a complete, organized, and accurate manner.

Just as there have been two broad approaches to developing key research questions about children’s testimonial ability, there have also been disparate and yet complementary methodologies employed to examine the issues. Most research examining children’s eyewitness testimony has been conducted using laboratory‐based analogue experiments. In a typical laboratory study, for example, children experience staged events, or watch short video clips, before their recall is tested using scripted questions that vary depending on the focus of the study (e.g., children’s recall vs. suggestibility). The advantages of such approaches are that researchers can systematically examine variables thought to influence recall (or suggestibility), whilst limiting the impact of confounding factors. Importantly, the accuracy or reliability of children’s statements can be evaluated against an objective record of what actually occurred. Invariably, however, such approaches are limited in the extent to which they mimic many of the features that may characterize investigations of possible maltreatment, thus their ecological validity is often questioned.

In attempts to bridge the gap between tightly controlled laboratory‐based research and actual forensic interviews, researchers have also studied children’s recall of naturally occurring events that more closely parallel aspects of maltreatment (e.g., medical procedures, traumatic events), and their recount of self‐nominated events that were emotionally salient (e.g., happy, sad, or scary events). Although the events described are presumed to have been more salient and thus memorable than staged events, there may be no objective record of them, meaning accuracy cannot be ascertained.

Researchers have also conducted field studies, examining forensic interviews of children believed to have been victims of maltreatment. Such work has illuminated interviewing practice in the absence of strict experimental control and identified areas in need of further research. Whilst field studies uniquely provide the opportunity to study the impact of interviewing techniques on children’s recall in real world settings, they are typically limited by the absence of objective records or incontrovertible corroborating evidence from which to assess the accuracy of children’s statements. The field has benefited from the combined outputs of both approaches in constructing evidence‐based practice recommendations (Lamb & Thierry, 2005). Despite very different approaches to examining the impact of interviewing strategies on children’s responses, the conclusions reached regarding children’s limitations and competencies have been remarkably consistent.

We have no litmus test to assess the accuracy of children’s accounts. What we do have is a convergent body of findings showing the range of influences that interact to shape children’s testimony. Broadly speaking, these can be grouped into factors that relate to 1) the kind of experience children are being asked to describe, 2) characteristics of the child, and 3) the way in which children are interviewed. Given the limited (if any) opportunity to intervene to mitigate the influence of factors relating to the experience itself, much attention has been focused on what the child brings to the interview context, what the interviewer brings, and how their mutual interactions shape the nature of the testimony elicited. In brief, the research reviewed at greater length later in this book has shown that, although children clearly can remember incidents they have experienced, the relationship between age and memory is complex, with a variety of factors influencing the quality of information provided. For our present purposes, perhaps the most important of these factors pertain to the interviewer’s ability to elicit information and the child's willingness and ability to express it, rather than the child's ability to remember it. Recognizing that, like adults, children can be informative witnesses, a variety of professional groups and experts have offered recommendations regarding the most effective ways of conducting forensic or investigative interviews with children (e.g., American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC), 2012; Home Office, 2011; Lamb, La Rooy, Malloy, & Katz, 2011; Lyon, 2014; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013). Clearly, it is often possible to obtain valuable information from children, but doing so requires careful investigative procedures as well as a realistic awareness of their capacities and tendencies. Specifically, accounts elicited using open‐ended questions (“Tell me what happened”) that tap recall rather than recognition memory are typically more accurate, regardless of the children’s ages. The completeness of these initially brief accounts can be increased when interviewers use the information provided by children in their first spontaneous utterance as prompts for further elaboration (e.g., “You said the man touched you, tell me more about that touching”) (Lamb et al., 2003). Unfortunately, however, forensic interviewers frequently ask very specific questions (“Did he touch you?”) that draw upon recognition rather than recall memory. Such questions typically elicit less accurate responses than open‐ended prompts and may even cause erroneous information to be incorporated into children’s testimony. What we have learned about children’s memories and reporting capacities, as well as the implications for forensic interviewers, are the focus of Chapter 2.

In Chapter 3 we outline how children’s contributions and informativeness can be enhanced significantly by preparing them for their task as informants. Research has demonstrated the positive impact of establishing “ground rules” and conducting a brief practice interview with children before introducing the focus of enquiry. We outline some relevant caveats—for example, that children need to have the opportunity to practice ground rules for maximum effect and that practice interviews need to follow the same principles that apply to the substantive interview (namely, they should emphasize the use of open questions). We discuss research evaluating responsive interviewing and exploring the impact of interviewers’ responses to requests for clarification and “I don’t know” statements on children’s subsequent reporting. We also review evidence regarding the effectiveness of different kinds of questioning strategies.

Just as the research examining children’s capacities in forensic interviews shows remarkable consensus, so too does research evaluating the conduct of those interviews, regardless of country and training method. Unfortunately, the research‐based and expert‐endorsed recommendations are widely proclaimed but seldom followed. As discussed more fully in Chapter 4, descriptive studies of forensic interviews in various parts of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, and Israel, amongst other countries, consistently highlight common and continuing challenges for forensic interviewers. Such studies show that forensic interviewers use open‐ended prompts quite rarely, even though such prompts reliably elicit more information than more focused prompts do and are universally recommended as the preferred means of eliciting information from young children (and, indeed, adults too). Interviewers often use untested or unsupported techniques in their interviews, and in doing so may exacerbate the tendency to ask more focused prompts. As well as the addition of undesirable practices, interviewers often omit recommended practices (e.g., ground rules, pre‐substantive practice narratives), known to promote children’s engagement with and contribution to interviews. To the distress of trainers, interviewers, and administrators, furthermore, deviations from “best practice” are commonly evident even when the interviewers have been trained extensively, are well aware of the recommended practices, and often believe that they were adhering to those recommendations! Both intensive and brief training programs for investigative interviewers appear to impart knowledge about desirable practices but have little if any lasting effect on the actual behavior of forensic investigators (Lamb, 2016).

Because forensic interviewers often have difficulty adhering to recommended interview practices in the field, the authors and their colleagues developed a structured interview Protocol designed to translate professional recommendations into operational guidelines that were first published as an appendix to a report by Orbach and her colleagues (2000). The structured Protocol featured in this book guides interviewers by illustrating techniques designed to maximize the amount and quality of information elicited from alleged victims. As detailed in Chapter 5, the NICHD Protocol (named after the research institute where most of the developers worked and from which they received financial support for their work) covers all phases of the investigative interview. The most recent version of the interview protocol includes guidance about how to enhance a child‐centered approach to interviewing, by improving rapport and support offered to the child throughout (this version is included at the end of the book as the Appendix). In this chapter we describe the structure and progression of interviews following the Protocol, and provide a review of the evidence‐base that has supported the Protocol’s development and implementation with children of different ages.

We then turn to field studies designed to determine whether interviewers using the Protocol indeed conduct interviews that conform better to the universally recognized “good practices” described earlier in the book, and how such practices affect children’s reporting (Chapter 6). Independent field studies in several different countries (Canada, Israel, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States) demonstrated convincingly that interviewers using the Protocol used at least three times more open‐ended and many fewer risky and suggestive prompts than when exploring comparable incidents, involving children of the same ages, without the Protocol, and that the children, in turn, provided much more forensically relevant information (including disclosures) that was more likely to be accurate because of the ways in which it was elicited. Recent laboratory‐based studies examining children’s responses when interviewed about a known event using the Protocol have provided additional evidence of its effectiveness in eliciting accurate as well as detailed accounts with minimal interviewer input or contamination. Contrary to widespread concerns that younger children could not be helped by use of the structured Protocol, furthermore, research discussed in this chapter shows that children as young as 4 years of age benefit and are more informative when interviewed in this way. Younger and older children are different, of course, and we will explain strategies especially designed to capitalize on the capacities and tendencies of younger (3‐ to 5‐year‐old) children (Chapter 7).

Children with developmental disorders are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment. Despite this, relatively little attention has been focused on understanding the capacities of such children to provide meaningful information when forensically interviewed. In a series of studies using the Protocol we examined various aspects of testimonial capacity in children with intellectual disabilities of varying severity as well as those with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and present the findings and recommendations for practice in Chapter 8.

Most of the published research on forensic interviewing has focused on interviews with cooperative suspected victims who were ready to disclose, had often made specific allegations of abuse prior to the formal investigation, and were especially responsive to open‐ended prompts. However, there is ample evidence that many victims of abuse report the abuse belatedly, if at all, with many denying or failing to report the abuse even when they are directly asked or formally interviewed. In Chapter 9, we describe work examining interviews with reluctant victims, as well as witnesses who are not also victims (Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz, & Horowitz, 2003), and with youthful suspects (Hershkowitz, Horowitz, Lamb, Orbach, & Sternberg, 2004).

In Chapter 10 we discuss the findings of studies that have examined the effectiveness of alternative or complementary ways of eliciting information from suspected victims. The use of visual aids (e.g., dolls, diagrams, and drawing) is common in forensic interviewing, despite a relatively limited or non‐existent evidence‐base. We present research examining additional approaches interviewers might use to support children’s recall and reporting, such as mental context reinstatement, a component of the Cognitive Interview, drawing, body diagrams, and dolls, concluding that some of these techniques are unnecessarily risky.

Chapter 11 discusses how ongoing supervision and the review of interviewing practice with interviewers serves to maintain and enhance the quality of their forensic interviews. In this chapter, we reflect upon training approaches and post‐training practices that contribute to good interviewing. We also consider possible difficulties accessing supervision and consider recent innovations designed to overcome them.

Chapter 12

Chapter 13