Unit 9 Assignment 1 Paper

The influences of delay and severity of intellectual disability on event memory in children.

Authors:

Brown, Deirdre A.. Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, Deirdre.Brown@vuw.ac.nz

Lewis, Charlie N.. Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England

Lamb, Michael E.. Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England

Stephens, Emma. Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England

Address:

Brown, Deirdre A., School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand, 6012, Deirdre.Brown@vuw.ac.nz

Source:

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 80(5), Oct, 2012. pp. 829-841.

NLM Title Abbreviation:

J Consult Clin Psychol

Publisher:

US : American Psychological Association

Other Journal Titles:

Journal of Consulting Psychology

Other Publishers:

US : American Association for Applied Psychology

US : Dentan Printing Company

US : Science Press Printing Company

ISSN:

0022-006X (Print)

1939-2117 (Electronic)

Language:

English

Keywords:

developmental delay, eyewitness testimony, forensic interviews, intellectual disabilities, suggestibility, event memory

Abstract:

Objective: To examine the ability of children with intellectual disabilities to give reliable accounts of personally experienced events, considering the effects of delay, severity of disability, and the types of interview prompt used. Method: In a between-subjects design, we compared children with intellectual disabilities (7–12 years) that fell in either the mild–borderline range (n = 46) or the moderate range (n = 35) and typically developing children matched for either chronological age (7–12 years; n = 60) or mental age (4–9 years; n = 65) with respect to memories of an interactive event about which they were interviewed after either a short (1-week) or long (6-month) delay. Children were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol (Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin, 2008) to elicit their recall of the event and were then asked a series of highly suggestive questions to allow both their reliability and suggestibility to be examined. Results: The children with mild intellectual disabilities were as able as their mental age matches, whereas children with more severe cognitive impairments were qualitatively different across the various competencies examined. However, even children with more severe impairments were highly accurate in this supportive interview context. Conclusions: The findings indicate that children with intellectual disabilities can be valuable informants when forensically interviewed and can provide clear guidance about the ways in which they should be interviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Document Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

*Delayed Development; *Legal Testimony; *Memory; *Witnesses; *Intellectual Development Disorder; Experiences (Events); Interviews; Suggestibility

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):

Child; Child Development; Cues; Female; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Male; Mental Recall; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors

PsycINFO Classification:

Mental Retardation (3256)

Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues (4200)

Population:

Human

Male

Female

Age Group:

Childhood (birth-12 yrs)

School Age (6-12 yrs)

Tests & Measures:

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Third Edition, U.K. Version

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition, U.K. Version

NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol

Grant Sponsorship:

Sponsor: Economic and Social Research Council

Grant Number: UK RES-000-23-0949

Recipients: Lewis, Charlie N.; Brown, Deirdre A.; Lamb, Michael E.

 

Sponsor: Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, New Zealand

Grant Number: LANC0201

Recipients: Brown, Deirdre A.

Methodology:

Empirical Study; Quantitative Study

Format Covered:

Electronic

Publication Type:

Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal

Publication History:

First Posted: Jul 16, 2012; Accepted: May 29, 2012; Revised: May 18, 2012; First Submitted: Nov 2, 2010

Release Date:

20120716

Correction Date:

20120924

Copyright:

American Psychological Association. 2012

Digital Object Identifier:

http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1037/a0029388

PMID:

22799269

PsycARTICLES Identifier:

ccp-80-5-829

Accession Number:

2012-18554-001

Number of Citations in Source:

97

 

The Influences of Delay and Severity of Intellectual Disability on Event Memory in Children

Contents

1. Sample

2. Event

3. Range of Competencies Under Investigation

4. Questioning Strategy

5. Delay

6. Method

7. Participants

8. Procedure

9. Results

10. Statistical Design

11. Discussion

12. Footnotes

13. References

Listen American Accent Australian Accent British Accent

By: Deirdre A. Brown

Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England;

Charlie N. Lewis

Psychology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England

Michael E. Lamb

Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England

Emma Stephens

Psychology Department, Lancaster University

Acknowledgement: Emma Stephens is now at the School of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.

 

This research was supported by Economic and Social Research Council Grant UK RES-000-23-0949 to Charlie N. Lewis, Deirdre A. Brown, and Michael E. Lamb, and in part by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, New Zealand (LANC0201) to Deirdre A. Brown. We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the schools, children, and their families. We thank the numerous research assistants who staged the event, and we also thank Judith Lunn for contributions to interviewing and data processing. Unit 9 Assignment 1 Paper

The past two decades have seen the development of research-based recommendations for the conduct of forensic interviews with typically developing (TD) children who have been witness to, or victims of, crimes (Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin, 2008). Less attention has been given, however, to particular groups of vulnerable witnesses, including those with intellectual disabilities (also referred to as learning difficulties, developmental delays, developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, or mental retardation) and those with other disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence (e.g., pervasive developmental disorders such as autism, and attention deficit and disruptive behavior disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]). Children with disabilities are a particularly vulnerable group of witnesses. They are both more likely to experience or witness abuse (Balogh et al., 2001; Crosse, Kaye, & Ratnofsky, 1993; Goldman, 1994; Hershkowitz, Lamb, & Horowitz, 2007; Randall, Parrila, & Sobsey, 2000; Reiter, Bryen, & Shachar, 2007; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996a, 1996b; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sobsey & Mansell, 1994; Sobsey, Randall, & Parrila, 1997; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998, 2000; Verdugo, Bermejo, & Fuertes, 1995; Vig & Kaminer, 2002; but see also Jaudes & Mackey-Bilaver, 2008) and yet less likely to report their abuse or to have their complaints investigated (Goldman, 1994; Reiter et al., 2007; Sharp, 2001) in a developmentally appropriate manner (Cederborg & Lamb, 2008), or have their capacities and limitations recognized in court (Cederborg & Lamb, 2006; Westcott & Jones, 1999). Thus, researchers and practitioners in a number of relevant fields (e.g., law, social services, policing, psychology) are increasingly recognizing the need for empirical research to provide an evidence base from which to (1) inform expectations of these witnesses; (2) guide the conduct of interviews that facilitate reporting without compromising reliability; and (3) develop resources, guidelines, and education for the legal system to improve access for alleged victims or witnesses who are both young and intellectually challenged.

There is a widespread perception that children with intellectual (or learning) disabilities (CWID) are even less able to provide meaningful accounts of their experiences than typically developing children (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Aldridge & Wood, 1998; Ericson, Perlman, & Isaacs, 1994; Henry, Bettenay, & Carney, 2011; Nathanson & Platt, 2005). Indeed, cognitive impairment is a central diagnostic feature of intellectual disability, and comorbid communication deficits are not uncommon. Police officers often feel they have insufficient skills, resources, and support when interviewing witnesses with intellectual disabilities, perceiving them as difficult interviewees as a result of behavioral difficulties and cognitive, communicative, and attentional limitations (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Aarons, Powell, & Browne, 2004; Milne, 1999; Sharp, 2001). Negative perceptions about the reliability and suggestibility of witnesses with intellectual disabilities appear to be widespread among police officers, legal professionals, and mock jurors (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Nathanson & Platt, 2005; Peled, Iarocci, & Connelly, 2004; Stobbs & Kebbel, 2003), meaning that cases are less likely to be investigated because successful outcomes (i.e., guilty verdicts) are deemed unlikely (Aarons & Powell, 2003; Aarons et al., 2004). Nevertheless, this group increasingly does participate in forensic interviews and court trials in a number of countries (e.g., Cederborg, Danielsson, LaRooy, & Lamb, 2009; Cederborg & Lamb, 2008; Cederborg, LaRooy, & Lamb, 2008; Connolly, personal communication, June 2011; Hanna, Davies, Henderson, Crothers, & Rotherham, 2010), despite the concerns outlined above. Indeed, 4% of the children testifying as witnesses in New Zealand recently had an intellectual disability (Hanna et al., 2010), and between August 2009 and June 2011, 215 applications were made for registered intermediaries to support child witnesses in the United Kingdom (Connolly, personal communication, 2011). Furthermore, whether a case ultimately reaches court or not, CWID are likely to be “interviewed” in a number of contexts, both informal (e.g., by parents, caregivers, or the persons they first disclosed to) and formal (e.g., child protection workers, investigators, attorneys). Thus, evidence-based information about how CWID narrate their personal experiences and the interviewing strategies that may enhance or detract from the accuracy of their accounts is sorely needed. Unit 9 Assignment 1 Paper

Even when cases involving CWID reach court, procedures and attitudes undermine their ability by seldom acknowledging or accommodating witnesses’ intellectual difficulties (Cederborg & Lamb, 2008; Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2004; O’Kelly, Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2003). Although complex, directive, and suggestive questions abound, judges tend not to intervene to reduce the potentially harmful impact of such questions on the witnesses’ reliability and credibility (Kebbell, Hatton, Johnson, & O’Kelly, 2001).

There are many possible reasons why intellectual disabilities may compromise children‘s abilities to provide meaningful and reliable eyewitness testimony (Henry et al., 2011). Slower information processing, poorer comprehension of events, and more specific deficits (particularly in working memory and executive control) may reduce the amount of information that is encoded (Clements, 1998; Henry, 2001; Milne & Bull, 1999; Swanson, 1990; Swanson & Trahan, 1990; Vicari, 2004). Communicative deficits may mean that CWID are less able to report what they do recall (Clements, 1998; Ericson et al., 1994; Moss, 1998). Social demands during the interview or court testimony may make these children more susceptible to suggestive techniques (Sigelman, Budd, Spanhel, & Schoenrock, 1981), and cognitive limitations may allow them to be confused more easily by lawyers’ questioning styles (Ericson et al., 1994). In reality, any or all of these processes may be at play, because CWID do not comprise a homogenous group, even when they share diagnostic labels (Cederborg & Lamb, 2008; Clements, 1998; Hatton, 1998; Vicari, 2004).

Despite widespread perceptions that CWID make less able witnesses, the findings are inconsistent and vary depending on question type and the type of competency assessed (e.g., recall vs. suggestibility). When information is elicited with open questions or during free recall, for example, CWID have been shown to provide as much information as typically developing (TD) children (chronological age- [CA-]matched: Agnew & Powell, 2004; Dent, 1986, 1992; Henry & Gudjonsson, 1999, 2003; mental age- [MA-] matched: Agnew & Powell, 2004; Gordon, Jens, Hollings, & Watson, 1994; Henry & Gudjonsson, 1999; Jens, Gordon, & Shaddock, 1990; Michel, Gordon, Ornstein, & Simpson, 2000), less information than CA-matched children (Henry & Gudjonsson, 2004, 2007; Michel et al., 2000), and more information than MA-matched children(Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003). When asked closed or specific questions, CWID provide as much information as MA-matches (Henry & Gujonsson, 1999; Jens et al., 1990; but see Gordon et al., 1994) and less than CA-matches (Dent, 1986, 1992; Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003, 2004, 2007). Findings concerning suggestibility are similarly inconsistent, with some studies revealing no differences between CWID and CA- or MA-matched children (Henry & Gudjonsson, 1999, 2004; Jens et al., 1990; Robinson & McGuire, 2006) and others showing heightened suggestibility relative to CA-matches (Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003; Henry & Gudjonsson, 1999, 2007; Michel et al., 2000; Young, Powell, & Dudgeon, 2003). Almost without exception, however, researchers have shown no differences in the overall accuracy of the accounts provided by CWID and TD children responding to open questions (Agnew & Powell, 2004; Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003). As with TD children, the amount and quality of information elicited from CWID is affected by the way in which they are interviewed (Brown & Lamb, 2009; Brown, Lamb, Pipe, & Orbach, 2008).

Cross-study differences, however, limit the extent to which existing research informs interviewing practices in the forensic context. For example, some studies focus on event memory in children who have specific developmental or learning difficulties but average cognitive abilities (e.g., autism spectrum disorders: Bruck, London, Landa, & Goodman, 2007; McCrory, Henry, & Happé, 2007; specific learning disability: Nathanson, Crank, Saywitz, & Reugg, 2007), whereas others have examined transcripts of interviews with CWID to evaluate interview dynamics but cannot elucidate accuracy (e.g., Cederborg et al., 2009; Cederborg & Lamb, 2008; Cederborg et al., 2008). Still others have explored the effectiveness of using different interview techniques with CWID (Dent, 1986, 1992; Milne & Bull, 1996; Robinson & McGuire, 2006). We have identified only 12 empirical studies in which the performance of CWID was compared with that of TD children, and these varied considerably on a number of dimensions that might also affect performance (e.g., age; severity of intellectual disability [ID]; whether the CWID were compared to childrenmatched for MA, CA, or both; the event-to-be-recalled; analysis of suggestibility vs. reliability; question type; delay), as more fully explained below.

Sample

Most studies have only included children within a single narrow age range, with different control groups (matched for mental and/or chronological age) and little consideration of the severity or type of learning disability (but see Agnew & Powell, 2004; Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003), despite concerns that CWIDs do not comprise a homogeneous group (e.g., Beail, 2002; Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993; Milne, 1999). We included two groups of CWIDs—those with “mild” or “borderline” intellectual disability (IQ = 55–78), and those whose disability fell within the moderate range (IQ = 44–53), and we included MA- and CA-controls for each CWID participant. We also included a wide range of ages within our CWID sample (7–12 years) so that we could explore the competencies of younger children than those who have typically been studied. Unit 9 Assignment 1 Paper

Event

TD children recall personally experienced events better than observed events (e.g., Baker-Ward, Hess, & Flannagan, 1990; Jens et al., 1990; Murachver, Pipe, Gordon, Owens, & Fivush, 1996), so caution is needed when generalizing to the forensic context from studies using other types of stimulus events, including those in which to-be-remembered “events” were observed (Beail, 2002; Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003; Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003). Only three studies with CWIDs have involved personally experienced stimulus events (Gordon et al., 1994; Jens et al., 1990; Michel et al., 2000). Our study used a novel, rich, and interactive event that allowed children to provide a wide range of information when interviewed.

Range of Competencies Under Investigation

Many studies of CWID have focused on their suggestibility and acquiescence (Agnew & Powell, 2004; Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003; Henry & Gudjonsson, 1999, 2003; Milne & Bull, 1996; Sigelman et al., 1981) and have highlighted the dangerousness of certain strategies (e.g., suggestive questions) but have not elucidated the capacities of CWIDs interviewed in a neutral or supportive manner. We thus need more studies exploring the conditions under which recall may be enhanced. In the present study, we explored the effects of age and severity of intellectual disability on different memory processes and indices of competency (e.g., completeness vs. accuracy vs. suggestibility) to advance our understanding of memory development in CWIDs.

Questioning Strategy

We know that children are less accurate when responding to suggestive questions for both social (e.g., demands of the interview context, desire to please the interviewer, or acquiescence to the perceived authority of the interviewer) and cognitive (e.g., source-monitoring difficulties, weak memory traces) reasons (Ceci & Bruck, 1998). Studies of witnesses who have learning disabilities have not been able to identify which of these processes explains their heightened suggestibility (e.g., Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003). Zigler, Hidgen, and Stevenson (1958) showed long ago that CWID were more sensitive to social reinforcement when performing cognitive tasks than were MA-matched TD controls, and many other psychologists have suggested that people with intellectual disabilities are more vulnerable witnesses because they are especially eager to please questioners (e.g., Milne & Bull, 1999). Although the severity of intellectual disability may be associated with decreased accuracy, few researchers have asked whether these problems can be ameliorated by appropriately supportive interviewing (Robinson & McGuire, 2006). In the current research, we asked whether CWIDs of different ages and levels of intellectual disability might benefit from the supportive conditions built into the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol (Lamb et al., 2008). We also sought to examine CWID’s recall in response to different types of questions (open vs. closed), as well as a series of suggestive questions that varied in format (open vs. closed) and content (leading vs. misleading). Unit 9 Assignment 1 Paper

DATA ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION TEMPLATE 1

DATA ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION TEMPLATE 2

Data Analysis and Application (DAA) Template

Learner Name

Capella University

Data Analysis and Application (DAA) Template

Use this file for all assignments that require the DAA Template. Although the statistical tests will change from week to week, the basic organization and structure of the DAA remains the same. Update the title of the template. Remove this text and provide a brief introduction.

Section 1: Data File Description

Describe the context of the data set. You may cite your previous description if the same data set is used from a previous assignment.

Specify the variables used in this DAA and the scale of measurement of each variable.

Specify sample size (N).

Section 2: Testing Assumptions

1. Articulate the assumptions of the statistical test.

Paste SPSS output that tests those assumptions and interpret them. Properly integrate SPSS output where appropriate. Do not string all output together at the beginning of the section.

Summarize whether or not the assumptions are met. If assumptions are not met, discuss how to ameliorate violations of the assumptions.

Section 3: Research Question, Hypotheses, and Alpha Level

1. Articulate a research question relevant to the statistical test.

2. Articulate the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis.

3. Specify the alpha level.

Section 4: Interpretation

1. Paste SPSS output for an inferential statistic. Properly integrate SPSS output where appropriate. Do not string all output together at the beginning of the section. Unit 9 Assignment 1 Paper

2. Report the test statistics.

3. Interpret statistical results against the null hypothesis.

Section 5: Conclusion

1. State your conclusions.

2. Analyze strengths and limitations of the statistical test.

 

References

Provide references if necessary.