Sem título

Página 1

Self administered interview

Psychologist have developed and empirically tested investigative interview techniques with aim at obtaining more accurate information from witnesses.

The most researched and developed interview tool is the cognitive interview designed by Geiselman et al (1984).

Includes several memory retrieval techniques known as mnemonics, the aim of these are to increase quantity and quality of information remembered.

The cognitive interview (CI) is recommended and widely used worldwide. The benefits are well established and recorded in both lab and real studies. However, it requires face to face interviews where the interviewer has to be trained and has access to recording equipment. Making it impractical when it could be most useful. To gain information from witnesses at the scene of a crime as soon as it has occurred before witness is subject to any post event information which might distort recall.

For some incidents the number of witnesses may outnumber the number of investigators resulting in loss of witness information.

Gabbert, Hope and Fisher (2009) altered aspects of the CI so that it could be administered at the scene of an event and to multiple witnesses simultaneously. The tool is called the self administered interview (SAI) and is a pen and paper version of the CI method.

The SAI contains multiple sections each providing the witness with cues and instructions that aim to facilitate recall. It makes use of CI mnemonics and elicits significantly more correct details than free recall instructions without a decrease in accuracy rates. The tool is self explanatory and can be completed by the witness in their own time.

Research has shown it reduces forgetting rate. Participants who engaged in SAI directly after an observed event recalled significantly more information after a week's delay during a subsequent free recall test than people who did not engage in any initial retrieval attempt. It appears to reduce witnesses susceptibility misinformation. Participants who had completed an SAI directly after an event were less likely to recall misleading post-event information encountered during the delay than individuals who did not engage in any initial retrieval attempt.

It is not a replacement for the full CI and does have several limitations. Due to its written format and impersonal nature it may not be suitable for all individuals or all types of crime. Witnesses with learning difficulties or young children may struggle with the written format of the SAI. Furthermore, traumatized witnesses or victims may struggle with the impersonal approach of the SAI and may benefit from the support of a trained interviewer. Research revealed that those interviewed with the SAI did not recall significantly more details than those who under went a CI. However, accuracy rates were higher for those who had completed a CI. Therefore the SAI should be treated as a promising initial interviewing tool which may help identify key witnesses and may strengthen and protect the original memory trace. The SAI should typically be followed up with a full CI conducted by a trained interviewer.

Reasons why it may work?