Efficacy of the Self-Administered Interview - Literature review Example

Efficacy of the Self-administered Interview Name Course Date Introduction Self-administered interview (SAI) is a tool used for investigating aimed at eliciting comprehensive information from witnesses in a quick and efficient manner. It is inform of standardized set of questions with clear instructions that requires the witness to provide their own statements. Self-administered interview is good option where resources are limited such that it is not possible to use the traditional method of interviewing (Hope, Gabbert & Fisher, 2011). Self-administered interviews are used in forensic investigation to strengthen the memory of the witness, to protect the witnesses from forgetting as well as against exposure to events that can distort the memory of the witness after the event. If well used, it can add value to an investigation either by the police or for medical purposes (Vrij, Hope & Fisher, 2014). Effectiveness of self-administered interviews Obtaining information from the witnesses immediately after the incidence helps to minimize problems that may arise due to delay and forgetfulness, therefore obtaining reliable statements. According to Gabbert, Hope, Fisher & Jamieson (2012), one of the factors leading to wrongful conviction of innocent people is erroneous testimonies from eyewitnesses. The quality of statements from eyewitnesses is can however be affected by time and therefore delay between the time of witnessing and giving account should be avoided. It is more ideal to interview witnesses as soon as possible after the incident because delay increases the chances of the witness forgetting some information (Gabbert, Hope, Fisher & Jamieson, 2012). Self-administered interviews have been scientifically tested and have been proved to be effective in acquiring information that is more accurate and detailed. Gabbert et al. (2009), carried out two studies on use of self-administered interviews. The first study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of self-administered interviews with Free Recall (FR) and Cognitive Interviews (CI). For the self-administered interviews, a booklet was presented containing five sections with information to facilitate recall and reporting of memories for an event that had been witnessed. The first section provided background information o the witness regarding the SAI too, the second section contained information regarding context reinstatement and components of ‘report everything’. The third section was about for the witness to provide detailed personal information about the appearance perpetrator in regard to aspects such as hair, build, complexion among others. The fourth section was to allow the witness to make a sketch of the scene so that they can obtain spatial details about the appearance of the perpetrators as much as possible. The fifth section allow the witness to give any other information regarding the event that the even had not mentioned such as time, whether the view was clear and the weather conditions among others (Gabbert et al., 2009). For the free recall, the participants were being issued with booklets where they could report all details related to the events as well as details about the perpetrator. The witnesses are also requested to provide complete and accurate information as much as possible, and avoid making guesses. For the cognitive interview, the participants were administered to cognitive interview that involved lectures lasting six hours, and other six hours of exercise and feedback. After analyzing the results, it was found that the information obtained through self-administered was found to be more clear. The participants were able for follow all the instructions and understood why it is important to do so (Krix et al., 2012). In the second experiment, participants were divided into two groups. One group was taken through a 30-minute session of self-administered interviews after which they made arrangements for the second session which was to come after one week. After one week, all the participants including those who did not participate in session one, returned for the second session. All the participants were given similar free-recall instructions where they were asked to give a report about an event that they had viewed in the previous week. They were all issues with free recall booklets with instructions requiring them to give as much details as possible about the event and the people involved. They were also requested to provide as much accurate and complete information as possible without guessing (Krix, Sauerland, Gabbert & Hope, 2014). Results of the experiment showed that participants who had completed a self-administered interview before gave details that were more correct regarding the people who were involved in the event. This study confirmed the fact that recording one’s memory immediately after witnessing an event is very important for subsequent attempts for recall. From the study, participants who had initially completed the self-administered interview were able to remember more about the event, including details that are more relevant forensically. Accuracy of the information was also higher for those participants who had completed the self-administered interview (Ginet & Verkampt, 2007). In another study by Hope, et al. (2013), self-administered interviews were used to collect information from witnesses of an incident involving road traffic collision where a car collided with a motorbike that was riding on three young men. One of the men died while the other two were seriously injured. The police investigators identified 16 people who had witnessed the incidence. Eight of the witnesses were made the key witnesses and were interviewed by the police after a short while. The other eight witnesses were issued with self-administered interview book-lets to maintain witness confidentiality. The analysis of the responses on SIA focused on analyzing the usability of the tool. This focused on areas such as evidence that the tool was properly used and instructions understood, the quality of the information collected using the tool, level of precision and vagueness and relevance of the collected information. Majority of the witnesses provided even additional information that was relevant and went ahead to draw more detailed sketches of what they observed. Only one person failed to complete the SAI book-let. One of the investigating officers stated that a few of the completed forms were even more detailed beyond what some investigating officers are capable of producing. The investigating officers were able to gather detailed and crucial evidence regarding the motorbike rider and the actions that led to the event. The investigators also stated that the SAI tool has saved them time which is an important resource to be considered during investigations. Generally, the three studies show how SAI is an effective recall tool for collecting information evidence a short while after the incidence (Lampinen, Neuschatz & Cling, 2012). Advantages of Self-administered interviews Research has found self-administered interviews to have several advantages compared to other methods of gathering witness evidence. One of the advantages is that they can provide high quality evidence from several witnesses to the police. This is because they are administered soon after the incidence and the witnesses are required to give complete and accurate information without guessing (Hope & Sauer, 2014). They are therefore able to recall as much accurate information as possible. Another advantage is that it helps to eliminate the practice of the police where they give a brief interview to the witness thereby affecting subsequent recall. Instead, they encourage the witnesses to give more detailed information which enables recall. It also helps to eliminate other poor interview practices such as asking leading questions, pressuring the witnesses as well as asking closed questions (Ebbesen & Rienick, 1998). Other advantages include that self-administered interviews allows an opportunity for all witnesses to give their evidence despite their status. This helps to overcome to challenge of resources faced by the police which forces them to select the witnesses to give evidence. In most cases, the police go for the witness who was close to the site of incidence, or who may appear to be confident (Kebbell & Milne, 1998). However, with SAI, even those witnesses in the periphery are given an opportunity and they may be having important information regarding the incident. SAI can therefore help the police to obtain adequate information without draining resources such as time, finances and manpower (Wells, Olson & Charman, 2002). Limitations of using self-administered interviews Despite the effectiveness of SAI in collecting witness evidence, there are limitations associated with the use of this tool. One of the limitations of self-administered interview is that since the interviews are completed by hand, this can be a challenge to witnesses with language or literacy barriers. Such witnesses may have difficulties in expressing themselves with a language that the investigator can understand (Kassin, Tubb, Hosch & Memon, 2001). The communication barrier will therefore affect the credibility of the evidence. Another limitation of using self-administered interview in forensic investigations is that the tool cannot be used for all types of crimes. For example, victims of sexual violence and other violent crimes may be traumatized and may require special support while recounting their testimony. Such witnesses may find the tool to be unfriendly and may not consider it worthwhile. Another limitation of using self-administered interviews is that if filled in absence of the investigator, there would be no one to clarify the questions to the witnesses and also to encourage them (Hope, 2013). Conclusion Scientific studies have clearly shown the effectiveness of using self-administered interviews in collecting witness evidence. Even though there are a few limitations to the use of SAI, the advantages outweigh the limitations. With the key focus of the investigators being accurate and relevant information, the limitations of the tool can be overcome to tap the benefits of the tool. The SAI tool has proved to be usable and affective in collecting evidence that is credible in forensic investigations. References Hope, L. et al. (2013). Self-administered Witness Interviews- Part III. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, Vol.177 No.2. Gabbert, F., Hope, L. & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting Eyewitness Evidence: Examining the Efficacy of a Self-Administered Interview Tool. Law & Human Behavior, 33, 298-307. Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2012). Protecting against susceptibility to misinformation with the use of a Self-Administered Interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 568-75. Vrij, A., Hope, L. & Fisher R. P. (2014). Eliciting Reliable Information in Investigative Interviews. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences (PIBBS), 1, 129-136. Hope, L. & Sauer, J. D. (2014). Eyewitness Memory and Mistaken Identifications. In Michel St. Yves (Ed.), Investigative Interviewing: Handbook of Best Practices . Thomson Reuters Publishers, Toronto. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. & Charman, S. (2002). Eyewitness identification confidence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 151-154. Ebbesen, E. B. & Rienick, C. B. (1998). Retention interval and eyewitness memory for events and personal identifying attributes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 745-762. Choo, A. (2015). Evidence. Oxford University Press. Lampinen, J., Neuschatz, J., & Cling, A. (2012). The Psychology of Eye Witness Identification. Chicago: Psychology Press. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the ‘general acceptance’ of eyewitness memory research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416. Kebbell, M. R. & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers’ perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 323-330. Hope, L., Gabbert, F., & Fisher, R. (2011). From laboratory to the street: Capturing witness memory using the Self-Administered Interview. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 211-226. Krix, A., Sauerland, M., Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Merckelbach, H. (2012). The effectiveness of the Self-Administered Interview when the witness was distracted during the crime. PsycEXTRA Dataset. Hope, L. (2013). Interviewing in Forensic Settings. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.) Oxford Bibliographies in Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Ginet, M. and Verkampt, F. (2007). ‘The cognitive interview: is its benefit affected by the level of witness emotion?’, Memory, 15: 450–64. Krix, A., Sauerland, M., Gabbert, F., & Hope, L. (2014). Providing eyewitnesses with initial retrieval support: what works at immediate and subsequent recall? Psychology, Crime & Law Volume 20, Issue 10. Read More