The Essentials of Child Abuse Investigation and Child Interviews
Lawrence W. Daly*
ABSTRACT: The credibility and reliability of a child abuse
investigation can be greatly enhanced with preparation and training. Law
enforcement officers should learn proper interviewing techniques and methods of
evidence collection. They need to obtain an objective comprehensive
history before the child is interviewed, carefully prepare for the interview,
and conduct a nonleading, nonsuggestive, and non-contaminating interview which
will produce reliable and complete information from the child. Properly
conducted interviews which are video or audiotaped will help eliminate the
current suspicion of the investigative process.
In the early 1980s, society was shocked by a new
epidemic. Child abuse allegations and investigations became a fixture on
every newscast and newspaper front page. Law enforcement was caught
unprepared to handle the volume of cases, and subsequently came under great
pressure by the many child rights and child advocate groups throughout the
United States. For the first time in this century, children were being
recognized as child abuse victims and becoming witnesses in a court of law.
At the time, law enforcement agencies employed minimal sexual
assault units which routinely handled reports of rapes — usually forceful
rapes of women. Unfortunately, law enforcement was not set up to combat
the newly recognized epidemic of sexual and physical abuse of children.
Virtually all agencies, Child Protective Services, medical professionals,
forensic researchers, child advocates, and therapists were caught by surprise,
and consequently scrambled to acquire the tools and expertise vital for
investigating and evaluating allegations of child abuse and for properly and
credibly interviewing child victims of alleged abuse. Thus, law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, attorneys, and judges became dependent upon
other professionals in the field who presumably had the knowledge and experience
to deal comprehensively with the issues of child abuse.
All investigators should be provided proper training in child
development, interview techniques, evidence gathering, court testimony, and
investigative methods. If application is made to become a special assault
detective or an officer is assigned to be in the special assault unit, training
and assessment for the assignment should be mandated for a 90 to 180 day period.
Currently, most jurisdictions do not have the budget and/or manpower to allow
this. This has been an excuse in the past, and it is also a reason for many
poorly conducted investigations and interviews, which have reduced the
reliability and credibility of investigations.
Before the front line officer responds to an abuse call, he
should remember that prior planning prevents poor performance. Thorough
familiarization with the child abuse history form is important. The officer
should be thinking about what information must be gathered and what avenues must
be taken if the allegation appears to be true.
Child Abuse History Form
When arriving at the scene, the front line officer should
have a copy of the child abuse history form which should provide, at a minimum,
the following areas of information to be gathered from the reporting party:
||Child information: name and date of birth.
||Guardian information: name, address, social security
number, marital status, other children, other persons in residence for five
years, if possible.
||Disclosure information: To whom has the child made
statements regarding the allegation? When? What was the substance of the
statements? Were there prior interviews?
||Behavior/environment: What behavioral characteristics are
unusual? Where does the child go to school? Obtain names of
teachers. To church? To
day care? Obtain name and address of day care provider. Obtain names, addresses
and telephone numbers of child's playmates. Where does the child sleep?
||Family problems: List any family problems which may be
relevant, including, but not limited to, divorce, separation, alcohol or drug
problems, and serious health problems.
||Alleged perpetrator: List name, date of birth, address,
social security number, employer, residence and business telephone, marital
status, spouse's name, name, age and number of children, present location of
perpetrator, last contact with child and possibility of future contact.
||Medical history. Attach any documentation.
||Evidence: List all evidence gathered documenting abuse. Photograph all marks bruises on the child.
||Further child protection: if protection of the child may
be an issue, notify Child Protective Services. If CPS has already made contact
with the child, obtain caseworker's name and telephone number. Leave space on
form for caseworker comments.
||Comments to follow-up investigator.
The child abuse history form must be distinct from the
general report that is commonly used by the front line officer. Because child
abuse is a unique crime, its circumstances require special handling. The child
abuse history form helps separate these cases from all the rest. The form should
never be filled out with the alleged victim present. Front line officers must
remember that conversations about the alleged abuse which are overheard by the
child jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. If the allegation is false
and/or is very traumatic for the child, any discussion of the alleged incident
could potentially contaminate the child's testimony. Steps should always be
taken to insure that the reporting party and the officer discuss the allegation
Proper interviews can greatly increase the accuracy of the
case and reduce trauma to the child. The front line officer should not attempt
to interview the alleged child victim. If this is unavoidable, the protocol for
Effective Interviewing of Child Victims as well as the proper
procedures for the follow-up and the investigation in general should be
Follow-up to the Child Abuse History Form
Obtaining a comprehensive history from the reporting party
provides the follow-up detective with a basis for case review and development of
a case action plan. The reporting party should also be given the telephone
number for the Special Assault Unit and instructed that the follow-up detective
will be calling to schedule an interview with the alleged victim. Moreover, it
must be stressed to the reporting party that under no circumstances should the
allegations or the pending interview of the child be discussed with the child.
The follow-up investigator should receive the child abuse
history form from the front line officer. In reviewing the case, the
investigator should use a case review analysis procedure. This analysis is
initiated when the investigator reviews the material that he has been presented
and separates the case into categories based on a comparison of statements made
by the alleged victim with the medical examination of the alleged victim. This
provides the investigator with the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Once
the case review analysis has been conducted, a case action plan should be
completed. A case action plan involves the prioritizing of the remaining stages
of the investigation and includes a section for milestones and summaries. The
case action plan is not carved in stone, and is rewritten when or if the case
action plan changes due to new information and new sources are discovered during
the follow-up investigation.
Practitioners who interview sexually and/or physically abused
children need to use effective techniques to simplify the interviews. The
practitioner must understand how to deal with the child abuse victim when the
interview becomes difficult. There are four stages of anxiety which I call
Four Walls of Anxiety, that the practitioner and the child may experience during
the interview. These four stages can occur:
||when the practitioner and child first meet for the interview,
this is the introduction-rapport building phase;
||when the practitioner requests information about the child's
body parts, specifically the identification of body parts and identification of
the child's private areas;
||when the practitioner requests information from the child
about the alleged incident of abuse in the free narrative, open-ended, or
specific phases; and
||when the child does not provide any details of the alleged
abuse but makes statements that he or she has been molested and/or the
practitioner discovers that the child is providing false information. This is
the rephrasing, requestioning phase, which deals with the child's details or
lack of details of the incident.
The breaking down of these "walls" is vital to the
success of an interview with a child. I have personally used and found the
following methods effective for conducting interviews with children. They have
enabled me to overcome the difficult interview, to reduce or eliminate all of
The Four Walls of Anxiety, and to conduct successful interviews.
The First Wall of Anxiety: Introduction
The first wall of anxiety that you and child encounter and
must overcome occurs during the initial introduction. Meet the adult, generally
the mother or father who brings the child to the interview, and the child in the
waiting area. Use friendly communication and immediately include the child in
questions and answers that are informative but independent of the child abuse
allegations. This helps create a comfortable trusting relationship between you
and the child (Cowan, 1990).
Your body language and the adult and child's perceptions of
you as threatening or non-threatening will determine the complexity or relative
ease of the rapport building phase (Mclver, 1986). Therefore, the introduction
process must progress slowly, gently and patiently. If the child seems
apprehensive when asked to come into the interview room, offer a time for the
adult and the child to come into the interview room together. This will allow
you and the child to discuss other issues independent of the abuse allegation,
and provides a longer prelude to the rapport building phase. These steps should
also lessen any anxiety in either you or the child.
Once the child appears comfortable, suggest that the adult
leave the room with the permission of the child. This allows the child to
believe that he has given permission for the detachment. Tell the adult that
once the interview is finished, the review of the video will be possible in the
Second Wall of Anxiety: Identification of Body Parts
Provide every opportunity for the child to relate his own
version of the events. In addition, you and the child will encounter the second
wall of anxiety as the identification and discussion of body parts is
introduced. You need to understand what names the child has for his body parts
and private areas, but never identify the body part allegedly touched by the
suspect (Daly, 1989a). At no time introduce to the child the concept of good and
bad touches, the names of private parts and/or any other labels for any body
part of the child. Allow the child to provide the names for body parts
independently, without suggestion (Raskin & Yuille, 1989). To reduce anxiety
the child often experiences when identifying private areas, use three questions
that I have found useful and non intimidating:
"Why do people wear swimsuits?"
"What body parts does your swimming suit cover?"
"What are the names of the body parts you use to go to the bathroom?"
Never identify the name of the suspect (Daly, 1989a). This
should be done by the child independently. Ask this question in the same manner
the other questions are asked. This should prevent the child from becoming
anxious. First, ask the child to describe each event from the beginning.
allegation is one of repeated abuse, obtain an outline of the typical form of
the abuse (Yuille, 1989). This will first give you the script memory.
the script of the incident as a means of accessing specific episodes. For
example, ask if there were any occasions when the script of the incidents were
changed. You might also ask the child to recall the first episode and/or the
last episode (Raskin & Yuille, 1989).
Do not interrupt the child during the free narrative. If you
think of questions, contradictions or inconsistencies, make a note for later
reference. Do not correct, interpret or challenge during the narrative phase.
the child does stop, encourage continuation with use of simple statements or
questions. For example, ask "What happened then?" Be patient, tolerate
pauses, and keep a relaxed tone in the interview (Raskin & Yuille, 1989).
The Third Wall of Anxiety: Specific Question Phase
The purpose of this phase is to provide an opportunity to
clarify and extend previous answers (Raskin & Yuille, 1989). The third wall
of anxiety rises up when the practitioner requests more specific information
from the child about the alleged incident of abuse. Generally children will
discuss these issues, but there are some children who refuse to discuss the
abuse, fail to provide details of the abuse, but make statements that they have
been abused. Rephrasing questions may provide the child an opportunity to
describe details of the alleged incident (Walsh, 1987). If rephrasing the
questions is unsuccessful, refocusing the child into a different area,
independent of the child abuse incident, may allow the child to relax and forget
the anxiety developed during the initial question. Once a time of relaxation has
been provided, you can then rephrase the question about the alleged incident of
child abuse (Yuille, 1989).
If this does not provide an opportunity for the child to
discuss the issues, cease the interview and schedule another with the child at a
later date. Many practitioners feel that obtaining the successful interview is
more important than respecting the child's right to talk or not talk. Unless a
protection issue is being explored, there is no reason why the child should not
be allowed to come back and discuss the matter at a later date.
One tool for helping the child to recall specific details is
the mnemonic device. These memory aids can assist the child having difficulty
with recall or be introduced a child exhibits signs of extreme emotional trauma
or cannot provide the content and context of the alleged incident (Yuille,
1989). A method I have used, which I call the Disassociation Overview, asks the
child to view the alleged incident from the eyes of a camera and/or to place
himself above the alleged incident and to look down upon himself and the alleged
suspect and describe the content and context of what occurred.
Never introduce information you may have obtained from any
other source during the investigation. The one exception is using an object as a
mnemonic. For example, if you know a towel was used during the abuse and the
child has not mentioned it, you might ask, "Do you remember anything about
a towel?" (Note: This form of question provides no information about what
was supposedly done with the towel.) At this point, do not tell the child that
another person has disclosed details of the alleged incident to you. If there
are inconsistencies in the child's statement, they should be addressed last (Yuille,
The Fourth Wall of Anxiety: Rephrasing, Re questioning Phase
The fourth wall of anxiety, which can be an obstacle in the
interview, occurs when the child does not provide any details of the alleged
abuse but makes general statements that he has been molested. If you have
properly prepared for the interview, many steps can be taken to insure that the
child provides the 6 Ws: who, what, when, where, why and how (Daly, 1989b).
Questions about what the child has told others may indicate
that he has either overheard something, been coached, or is incapable of
providing the true aspects of the incident. Rephrasing and redirecting can help a
child provide the necessary details. If the child does not have the verbal
capacity or is uncomfortable about discussing the issues, using a mnemonic
device can be helpful and is generally successful in these types of situations.
The child who is being untruthful can be dealt with in a
variety of ways. After the child has provided a free narrative of what allegedly
occurred, ask specific questions in an attempt to obtain detailed information
about the alleged incident. After this avenue has been explored, rephrase in an
overview style, restating what the child allegedly said, but adding details that
the child did not provide and which you know to be untrue. If the child is
agreeable to these additions, discuss the inconsistencies of the two stories.
This may permit the child to save face with reference to why he is providing
embellishments or untruths. If the child is incapable of receiving an overview
analysis of his statement, deal with the interview segments.
You run the risk of destroying rapport with the child if you
confront or predetermine that what a child is saying is false. Confronting the
child with statements believed to be false should be a last resort. But
confrontation may be utilized when all of the inconsistencies have been pointed
out to the child and the child fails to take advantage of the "avenues for
saving face." As a rule, the child should be held accountable for whatever
statements he makes.
The Interview Room
The interview room should be one that is comfortable for the
child, yet conducive to a proper interview. Toys, games and other distractions
should be kept to a minimum. The room should be bright, with simple geometric
lines and shapes using primary colors on the walls instead of pictures, drawings,
paintings or anything that might distract the child (Raskin & Yuille, 1989).
These add visual stimulation without creating a diversion for the child's
attention. The windows should be decorated with colorful curtains similar
to those in a home to lessen the
sense that the child is in a business office. Furniture should be minimal, with
either a couch and chair or a table and chair.
The room should be equipped with a video and audio system. The video cameras
should be positioned on the comer of a wall near the ceiling where they will
cause no distractions or discomfort for the child and the microphones should not
be conspicuous in the room. Depending upon the age of the child, the
reasons for such
equipment should be explained, stressing the obvious benefits candidly, i.e.,
"We'll be able to remember everything that you say without having to ask you
about it over and over again."
Review all of the materials and information available regarding the alleged incident.
This allows preparation of pertinent questions specific to the incident and the
child being interviewed. Prepare all questions prior
to the introduction phase of the interview. Before the interview, tell the adult
who will be bringing the child that he will not be involved in the interview, but will
be permitted to watch the interview on closed circuit monitors. Caution the adult
against "coaching" the child, since this will usually result in inconsistencies
in the child's testimony. Attempts by the child to remember what he
has been "told" to say will be obvious to a trained interviewer, and will
be used in court to discredit the child's story. If you ascertain that the child
is anxious or uncomfortable about being separated from the parent/advocate, you
can build in extra time for rapport building. The success of any interview is
Conducting the Interview
The possibly most important step in the investigation is the interview of the
child. The entire basis for proceeding with prosecution of an
allegation of child abuse often hinges on this interview.
There is no such thing as an easy interview, especially when
dealing with a child abuse victim. No matter how many interviews the
conducted or participated in, each interview of a child presents a unique and
Rapport Building: In the Interview Room
Begin by asking the child questions independent of the abuse
allegations, i.e. birthday, Christmas gifts, name of teacher, etc. This helps
the child relax. Additionally, this provides an informal assessment of the child
and the child's behavior. The child's mood, emotional responses and
temperament can also provide the practitioner with an understanding of how the
child responds to questions and answers (Raskin & Yuille, 1989).
Introducing the Purpose of the Interview
Emphasize the importance of telling the truth and discuss the
differences between telling the truth and a lie. Questions about why the child
has come to the interview can be discussed at this point. Also, ask questions at
this stage to encourage the child to make a spontaneous disclosure about the
alleged abuse (Raskin & Yuille, 1989; Walsh, 1987).
The Interviewing Method and Technique
Proceed from the most general open aspects of the alleged
incident to the more specific incidents (Benedek & Schetky, 1985). This
requires discipline and patience. Take steps toward more specific information
only when the direction of the interview lends itself to specifics (Raskin
& Yuille, 1989). Remember that the interview is a fact finding process.
interview aids, such as drawings, pictures, and anatomically detailed dolls,
only when every attempt at unassisted interviewing has been unsuccessful. Then
first use non-suggestive aids, drawings made by the child or doll houses (Raskin
& Yuille, 1989; Walsh, 1987). Introduce suggestive aids such as anatomically
detailed dolls, only if all other interview procedures have failed. But be aware
of the consequences of using such aids (Raskin & Yuille, 1989).
Be alert to the developmental differences in language and
cognition, (Cole & Loftus, 1987; Raskin & Yuille, 1989) and never assume
that they know what a child means by the use of a particular word. It is always
best to ask, especially if the meaning is unclear. Similarly, use words and
concepts within the child's frame of reference. Keep in mind the needs of
children, especially younger ones. Be aware of nutritional requirements, body
functions and attention span, which is usually ten to twenty minutes in an
interview setting (Raskin & Yuille, 1989).
The Open Questioning Phase
The purpose of this phase is to provide an opportunity for the
child to elaborate about details of the events described during the free
narrative phase. In ideal circumstances, the flee narrative would have exhausted
the child's memory; however, some questioning is usually
necessary after the narrative, and the younger the child, the more likely this
is true. Unfortunately, the younger the child, the shorter the attention span,
so the interviewer must evaluate the child's condition and ability to persevere
with the interview. If it is determined that the interview may proceed,
questions should take the form of requests for more details about events
previously disclosed. For example, "Can you tell me any more about the time
it happened in the car?" (Raskin & Yuille, 1989). Open questions cannot
be answered by a "yes" or "no" and must never cause the
child to paraphrase and parrot the information from the question back to the
interviewer in the form of a yes/no answer.
Examples of what not to do:
"After the time Joe touched you under your shirt, did he
touch you under your pants?" (interviewer).
"Yes, he touched me under my pants." (child).
"You said that Daddy touched your bottom. Did Grandpa
touch your bottom?" (interviewer).
You can see that the child is simply affirming the statement
made by the interviewer by answering "yes." In this case, the child has
probably concluded that the interviewer wanted an affirmative answer, since
adults generally are nicer to you when you agree with them.
Leading Questions and Suggestions
Under unusual circumstances, a Child Protective Agent may
have to question a child who has been unwilling to disclose. Using leading
questions to gain information about possible abuse should be a last resort.
Taking this step virtually eliminates the likelihood of criminal proceedings.
This step should be taken only when every other phase of the interview has
failed to produce sufficient information and there is still a good reason to be
suspicious of abuse (Raskin & Yuille, 1989).
Concluding the Interview
Regardless of the outcome of the interview, thank the child
for participating. Ask the child if he has any questions and give appropriate
answers (Raskin &Yuille, 1989). However, do not make promises about future
developments in the case, since their failure to materialize would harm rapport.
Properly interviewed, children who have been sexually and/or
physically abused or have witnessed a violent crime can become excellent
witnesses in a court of law. The reliability and credibility of a child's
statements during the interview will reduce the likelihood that the integrity of
the interview will be questioned at a later date.
All interviews should be videotaped and/or audiotaped. The
effective use of video or audiotaping of child interviews can reduce the number
of times a child is interviewed. This is being done in at least twenty-seven
states and is also being utilized in many countries outside the United States
including Canada, Holland and Great Britain.
Video/audiotaping has many advantages to both the alleged
victim and accused for the following reasons:
||Properly conducted taped interviews generally reduce the
number of times the child has to be interviewed.
||The recording preserves the integrity of the interview and
provides an accurate record of the interview. (Yuille, Hunter, Joffe, & Zaparniuk 1991).
||The tape can be used to confront the accused.
||The tape can be used as a therapeutic tool.
||The tape can be used to ally children's fears of disbelief
by parental figures and to confront disbelief or denial when it actually exists
(McFarlane & Krebs, 1986).
||The tape can be a deterrent to retractions (McFarlane &
||The tape can assist the child in preparing for his or her
court appearance (Yuille et al., 1991).
||A tape is an important form of ongoing training for the
interviewer and provides professional protection for the interviewer (Yuille et
||A tape of the interview of the child is an effective aid
in obtaining a confession by the perpetrator (Yuille et al., 1991).
||Along with a properly-conducted interview, taping
facilitates the goal of minimizing the trauma to the child and of maximizing the
recall of the child during the interview.
||The United Kingdom, Germany, several other counties, and
now United States state and local agencies are utilizing the step-wise
interview. The step-wise interview minimizes the trauma of an interview as well
as minimize the number of interviews.
||Tapes aid and support the prosecution of criminal cases
of child sexual assault or juvenile court actions to protect dependent children
(Bulkley & Davidson, 1980).
||Tapes provide objective evidence of what took place in
the interview. Testimony from a child under ten years of age is generally
admissible through the child hearsay exception. The interviewer may be allowed
to testify to what and how the child responded verbally and emotionally
(affect). Preservation of this evidence should be considered first instead of
allowing the interviewer to testify to his/her subjective viewpoints.
||The accuracy of an interview cannot be validated without
the use of the video/audiotape. A professional cannot focus on conducting an
interview and take accurate verbatim notes at the same time. Even a second
professional in the interview room is not capable of taking completely accurate
Many of the professionals interviewing children have stated
several reasons for not video/audio interviewing children. Some of these are:
||Video/audiotaping a child in an interview setting violates
the child's rights.
||Video/audiotaping a child is traumatizing to the child.
||The taped interview can be used to impeach the alleged
victim. This is if the child is inconsistent from one tape to the next.
The rights of the child and the accused have to be weighed in
the legal process. Everyone has the right to refuse to be interviewed, as well
as refusing to be video/audiotaped. If interviewers would set a national
standard on why all interviews should be video/audiotaped, then maybe
everyone would feel compelled to follow a method that insured accuracy and
objectivity, not subjectivity.
Some professionals who interview children claim that
video/audiotaping is traumatizing to the child. I was unable to locate any
research and/or literature to support such a position.
The argument that the video/audiotaping can be used to
impeach a child is simply unfounded. Each child reacts differently under
specific circumstances and environments. The way the interviewer communicates to
the child may cause a change in what the child says or how the child reacts.
This would be an inconsistency, and I doubt that anyone would attempt to impeach
the child on this basis alone.
During my interviews which are video/audiotaped, I have found
children who tell me completely opposite information than what was previously
obtained. Simply stated, my interview was recorded, the previous interview was
not. I asked open-ended questions and followed the effective method of
interviewing children. The prior interview was summarized, the method of the
previous interview became obvious as I conducted the interview and obtained the
information. The integrity of which interview is more effective and credible is
It is my belief that the reason child interviews are not
videotaped is that it would expose the leading and suggestive nature of
The initial interrogation by officials is usually not
recorded. There may or may not be notes or reports and the amount of information
available about this first interview is generally minimal. Most often, the only
information is a report summarizing what the child allegedly said during the
interview. However, if the interview is not recorded, there is no way to know
what actually went on. We have found that reports of what supposedly transpired
in an interview are often markedly different from what actually took place,
which we later discover when we are able to view the videotape of the actual
interview. Often interviewers ask a question or make a statement to which the
child gives little response. After the question is repeated several times, the
child may finally nod or answer yes. But in the written report, the child is
presented as making the statement rather than only agreeing with the
interviewer's statement. (Wakefield & Underwager, 1989, p. 4).
The gathering of testimony from a child under ten years of
age is different than any other interview process, because it is generally an
exception to the hearsay rule. Due to the fact that the interviewer will most
likely be allowed in a court of law to testify to what the child said and how
the child responded emotionally (affect) to the questions, I feel that it is
essential that the interview should be video/audiotaped.
Once the interview is concluded, the investigator may receive
additional information about the allegation, which should be documented and
placed on the case action plan. The witnesses who have been mentioned and/or
may have information should then be contacted and their statements taken. Once
the investigator has conducted and completed the investigation, the prosecutor
will be permitted to review the tape of the interview, as well as the additional
statements. A skilled law enforcement officer, trained in interviewing children,
will be preferred in court over the unskilled prosecutor or caseworker.
During the early stages of the recognition of child abuse,
law enforcement officers came under attack for incomplete investigations, and
for conducting leading, suggestive, and contaminated interviews of children.
However, if a proper department policy and procedure is set up from front line
officer to follow up detective, the credibility and reliability of the
investigation is greatly enhanced.
The issues most often raised in a court of law are the
absence of video and audiotaping, the destruction of notes, and the leanness of
the investigation as a whole. If training and assessment programs are developed
and officers are educated about child development, properly conducted video or
audiotaped interviews of children will result in the disappearance of the current
suspicion of the investigative process.
The law enforcement officer must remember that the judge
and/or jury hearing the case looks to the law enforcement officer's ability to
an objective fact finder. If a defense attorney is given the opportunity to
attack the credibility and reliability of any segment of the investigation or
interview of the alleged child victim, the case can be lost and a guilty
individual could escape justice.
Law enforcement and law enforcement officers must take the
lead in the battle against child abuse. In order to be successful, individual
officers must decide whether to be advocates or investigators. It is appropriate
to show support and sensitivity toward a child who has been abused, but support
is inappropriate when the investigator loses the objectivity demanded of a fact
It is the obligation of the individual to evaluate the
options and decide whether to become part of a specialized unit that deals with
sensitive and emotional issues such as child abuse. In the nineties, law
enforcement officers must choose whether to be investigators or advocates.
Benedek, E. P., & Schetky, D. H. (1985). Allegations of sexual abuse in
child custody and visitation disputes. In D. H. Schetky & E. P. Benedek
(Eds.), Emerging Issues in Child Psychiatry and the Law
(pp. 145-156). New York,
Bulkley, J.,& Davidson, H. A. (1980). Child Sexual Abuse: Legal
Issues and Approaches. Washington, DC: National Legal Resource Center for
and Protection, American Bar Association.
Cole, C. B., & Loftus, E. F. (1987). In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D.
F. Ross (Eds.), Children's Eyewitness Memory
(pp. 178-208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cowan, D. (1990, February). Interviewing the child victim of sexual abuse. The Legal
Investigator, pp. 2-3.
Daly, L W. (1989a). Innocence: The Ragged Edge (). Tacoma, WA: Advanced Media
Daly, L. W. (1989b, October). Sex abuse investigations. Presented at the WACDL
conference, Seattle, WA.
McFarlane, K., & Krebs, S. (1986). Videotaping of interviews and court
testimony. In K. MacFarlane & J. Waterman, Sexual Abuse of Young
(pp.164-196). New York: The Guilford Press.
Mclver, W. F. (1986, January/February). The case for a therapeutic interview
in situations of alleged sexual molestation. The Champion,
Raskin, D.C., & Yuille, J. C. (1989). Problems in evaluating interviews
of children in sexual abuse cases. In S. J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, & M. P. Toglia
(Eds.), Perspectives on Children's Testimony ()
(pp. 184-207). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1989, March). Techniques for interviewing
children in sexual abuse cases. Presented at the Fifth Annual Symposium in Forensic Psychology, San Diego,
Walsh, G. (1987, August). Law Society Journal, 49-53.
Yuille, J. C. (1989). Protocol for interviewing children. Unpublished manuscript.
University of British Columbia.
Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1991). Interviewing
children In sexual abuse cases. University of British Columbia, in press.
Other Suggested Reading
Aman, C., & Goodman, G. S. (1987, September). Children's use of
anatomically detailed dolls: An experimental study. Paper presented at the National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect Symposium on Interviewing Children,
Beach, B. H. (1983, January 31). Out of the mouths of babes. Time, p. 58.
Boat, B. W,. & Everson, M. D. (1988). Interviewing young children with
anatomical dolls. Child Welfare, 67(4), 337-352.
Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988). Using anatomical dolls: Guidelines for interviewing young children in sexual abuse
investigations. Chapel Hill, NC: Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina.
Cohen, J. D. (1988). Interviewing the child witness. Presented at the WACDL
Conference, Seattle, WA.
Colby, I., & Colby, D. (1987). Videotaping the child sexual abuse victim.
Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 117-121.
Conte, J. R., & Berliner, L. (1981, December). Sexual abuse of children:
Implications for practice. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Eatman, R. (1986). Videotaping interviews with child sex offense victims. American Bar Association, Child Abuse Law Reform Project.
Child's Legal Rights
Journal, 7(1), 13-18.
Farr, V. L., & Yuille, J. C. (1987, Fall). British Columbia
Gelman, D. (1989, November 13). The sex abuse puzzle. Newsweek, p. 99-100.
King, M. A., & Yuille, J. C. (1987). Suggestibility and the child
witness. In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D. F. Ross (Eds.), Children's Eyewitness Memory
(pp.24-35). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lubin, R. G. (1990, April). The trial of a child sexual abuse case. The Champion,
Quinn, K. (1986). Competency to be a witness: A major child forensic issue. The
Bulletin of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
Schuman, D. (1986). False accusations of physical and sexual abuse. The
Bulletin of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
Yuille, J. C. (1988). The systematic assessment of children's testimony. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
Yuille, J. C. (1989). Credibility Assessment (). Dordrecht: The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[Back to Volume 3, Number 2]
[Other Articles by this Author]