Examining forensic interviewers’ perceptions of practice-focused supervision
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865816655588 |
| Author | Deirdre Brown,Paul Jose,Missy Wolfman |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2017, Vol. 50(4) 566–581
Examining forensic
! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
interviewers’ perceptions
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865816655588
of practice-focused supervision
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Missy Wolfman, Deirdre Brown
and Paul Jose
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Abstract
Regular supervision influences interviewing quality with child witnesses. It is unclear, however,
whether interviewers recognize the importance of supervision, and how often they access it.
The present study surveyed 39 New Zealand Specialist Child Witness Interviewers (otherwise
known as forensic interviewers), and examined: (a) their access to, and, perceptions of super-
vision, and (b) factors that may influence their access to, and, perceptions of supervision. We
identified 26 interviewers who received some form of practice-focused supervision. Within this
group, there was considerable variability in terms of how often they accessed supervision, and,
their ratings of how satisfied they were with their access to, and the content of, supervision.
Furthermore, some of those who did participate in supervision felt they did not actually receive
specific input about their interviewing. Thus, an important area for investment in promoting
good interviewing practice is developing effective approaches to facilitate interviewers engaging
in regular practice-focused supervision, perhaps, at least in part, by addressing some of systemic
barriers identified (e.g. limited financial support, time constraints, lack of experienced super-
visors, lack of understanding/support from managerial staff and geographical isolation).
Keywords
Best-practice interviewing, child witnesses, forensic interviewing, investigative interviewing,
specialist child witness interviewing, supervision
Date received: 18 November 2015; accepted: 16 May 2016
Interviewing children about allegations of maltreatment is a crucial first step in the
process of ascertaining whether the child has been abused or is at imminent risk of
abuse (Brown & Lamb, 2015). Whilst there are a variety of factors that influence how
well children can recount their experiences, there is widespread recognition that inter-
viewing techniques play a significant role (Lamb, La Rooy, Malloy, & Katz, 2011).
The quality of interviewing is improved when interviewers engage in regular supervision
Corresponding author:
Missy Wolfman, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Kelburn Parade, P.O. Box 600, Wellington
6012, New Zealand.
Email: missy.wolfman@vuw.ac.nz
Wolfman et al.
567
and feedback (Cyr, Dion, McDuff, & Trotier-Sylvain, 2012; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach,
Esplin, & Mitchell, 2002; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Esplin,
2002). Despite this, little is known about forensic interviewers’ perceptions of supervision,
their evaluation of the quality and contribution of supervision to their practice, and their
general beliefs about the importance of supervision for maintaining evidence-based prac-
tice. The two aims of this study, therefore, were to (a) establish forensic interviewers’
access to and perceptions of supervision, and (b) identify factors that may influence
their access and satisfaction with their supervision.
The role of practice-focused supervision in forensic interviewing
Supervision can be defined in many ways and for many purposes, but two broad themes
are identified in the literature – supervision for self-care or well-being, and supervision
for quality control (Turner & Hill, 2011). Although supervision plays an important role
in the well-being of forensic interviewers (Perron & Hiltz, 2006), this study is interested
in the second role of supervision, namely interview practice (i.e. quality control).
Forensic interviewing requires highly specialized skills and knowledge, and it is a cog-
nitively challenging task (Powell, Wright, & Clark, 2010). Training may increase know-
ledge without necessarily improving interviewing skills (Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach,
Hershkowitz, et al., 2002). Given the poor adherence of interviewers to recommended
guidelines, researchers have developed interviewing protocols such as the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) investigative interviewing
protocol (Orbach et al., 2000). Training in following the NICHD protocol (Cyr & Lamb,
2009) or just the general principles underlying it (without implementing the structured
protocol, e.g. the PEACE model, Clarke & Milne, 2001) improves interviewing practice by
increasing open-ended prompts and reducing closed-ended and suggestive prompts
(Cederborg, Alm, Lima da Silva Nises, & Lamb, 2013). Research suggests, however,
that the gains from training in a particular interview protocol are only maintained
when regular individualized supervision and feedback is provided (Cyr et al., 2012;
Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin, et al., 2002; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz,
et al., 2002). For example, in Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin et al.’s (2002) study, eight
trained forensic interviewers who received direct and specific feedback about their inter-
viewing practice were more likely to ask open-ended questions when receiving regular
supervision and timely feedback compared to when they did not receive supervision. In
other words, when supervision and feedback were withdrawn, interviewers used fewer
invitations (e.g. ‘‘Tell me everything that happened’’), but more Option-posing (e.g.
‘‘Did he touch you under or over your clothes?’’) and Suggestive prompts (‘‘He forced
you to do that, didn’t he?’’) with alleged child victims of sexual abuse.
In another study, Cyr et al. (2012) trained two groups of forensic interviewers to use the
NICHD protocol. After training, one group received written feedback on interviews they
conducted with child sexual abuse complainants while another group did not receive writ-
ten feedback. Although both groups conducted better interviews after they had been
trained, the group that received written feedback on interviews were more likely to
adhere to the NICHD protocol compared with the group that did not receive any feedback.
Specifically, interviewers who received feedback were more likely to ask broad open-ended
prompts than those who did not receive feedback (37% vs. 24% of the questions were
568
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 50(4)
broad open-ended prompts). Thus, while training interviewers in NICHD protocol did
improve interview quality, more benefits were evident when regular supervision and feed-
back was given to interviewers. Overall, the extant evidence suggests that ongoing feedback
and supervision is necessary for maintaining best-practice interviewing.
According to the Feedback Intervention Theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), effective
feedback brings the locus of attention to how current behaviour is congruent or incon-
gruent with goals or standards. Only when there is a perceived discrepancy between
current behaviour and goals will there likely be behavioural change. As such, providing
direct feedback on interviewing practice may assist interviewers in recognizing how their
interviewing practice compares to (and perhaps falls short of) best-practice guidelines.
Specific feedback may subsequently stimulate behavioural change that leads to better
adherence to best-practice recommendations.
Given the importance of regular and direct feedback on interviewing quality, it is import-
ant to establish forensic interviewers’ access to, and perceptions of supervision. Reflection
upon supervision needs may assist interviewers in accessing additional supervision and/or
support. Identifying perceived barriers to accessing supervision will also contribute to the
development of future studies (e.g. strategies to support interviewers in maintaining best-
practice standards of interviewing). To the best of our knowledge, only one study has
examined child forensic interviewers’ access to practice-focused supervision. La Rooy,
Lamb and Memon (2011) surveyed 91 Scottish police interviewers and found that only
39.6% of the respondents received any feedback about their interviews. When interviewers
did receive some form of feedback, this typically constituted a discussion of the case rather
than specific interviewing techniques. Furthermore, Powell and Barnett (2014) identified a
lack of experienced supervisors as one of the factors hindering forensic interviewers from
regularly receiving feedback on their interview practice in Australia. In a Canadian study
surveying 171 forensic interviewers working with adults, Snook, House, MacDonald, and
Eastwood (2012) found that only 23% of respondents indicated that they received feedback
on their interviews. The frequency of this feedback, however, was not assessed nor was
interviewers’ satisfaction with their access to, and the content of supervision. Taken
together, these findings suggest that access to supervision and skill development opportu-
nities expressly targeted at both child and adult interviewing practice may be limited, and
one potential barrier in accessing supervision may be the lack of supervisors with specific
expertise in interviewing. As such, benchmarking supervision practice will highlight areas of
good practice as well as common challenges that can be addressed at a systemic level.
Despite evidence that supervision contributes to good interviewing practice,
we do not know whether interviewers themselves...
To continue reading
Request your trial