Allegation rates and credibility assessment in forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims: Comparing the revised and standard NICHD protocols.

Abstract

The Standard National Institute of Child and Health Development Protocol (SP) models the use of cognitively focused techniques for forensic interviewing, whereas the Revised Protocol (RP) also emphasizes intensive rapport building and the provision of emotional support. Interviewers trained to use the RP build rapport better and are more supportive than those using the SP, thereby enhancing children’s cooperation and performance. This study was designed to determine whether (a) children were more likely to make allegations of abuse and (b) their statements would be deemed more credible when they were interviewed using the RP rather than the SP. We used administrative data from the years immediately before and after the Israeli government mandated use of the RP, rather than the SP, in official investigative interviews nationwide. A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) was used to test the rates of allegations as well as ratings of interviewee credibility as a function of the Protocol version, while controlling for the nesting of children within interviewers as well as various child and abuse characteristics. Protocol version significantly predicted allegation rates and perceived “credibility” once the effects of other factors (child age, gender, relationship, type of abuse) were taken into account. Using the RP significantly increased the odds that children would make allegations by 14.3% and the odds that interviewers would deem allegations “credible” by 10.2%. Supportive interviewing based on better rapport between children and interviewers appeared to enhance children’s willingness to make credible allegations. Implications for improving practice and policy are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)