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.
  

Assignments/Training

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:

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 in private.

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 followed.
  

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.
  

Follow-up Investigation

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.
  

The Interview

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 The Four Walls of Anxiety, that the practitioner and the child may experience during the interview.  These four stages can occur:

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 monitor room.
  

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.  If the 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.  Then use 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.  If 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, 1989).
  

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."
  

Case Review

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 proper preparation.
  

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 practitioner has conducted or participated in, each interview of a child presents a unique and sensitive setting.
  

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.  Use 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).

"Yes." (child).

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.
  

Video/Audiotaping

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:

Many of the professionals interviewing children have stated several reasons for not video/audio interviewing children.  Some of these are:

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 unquestionable.

It is my belief that the reason child interviews are not videotaped is that it would expose the leading and suggestive nature of interviews.

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.
  

Court Testimony

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 be 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 finding officer.

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.
  

References

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, NY: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.

Bulkley, J.,& Davidson, H. A. (1980). Child Sexual Abuse: Legal Issues and Approaches. Washington, DC: National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy 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 Northwest.

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 Children ()() (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, 10, pp.11-13.

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, California.

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, Washington, D.C.

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 Work. 601-606.

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 Psychologist, 19-27.

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, 14, pp.18-21.

Quinn, K. (1986). Competency to be a witness: A major child forensic issue. The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 14, 311-321.

Schuman, D. (1986). False accusations of physical and sexual abuse. The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 14, 5-21.

Yuille, J. C. (1988). The systematic assessment of children's testimony. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 247-262.

Yuille, J. C. (1989). Credibility Assessment (). Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.