STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Why don't experienced specialist investigative police
interviewers utilise cognitive techniques during
significant witness interviews?
Mark Oldershaw
University of Portsmouth
Institute of Criminal Justice Studies
October 2012
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of the
MSc Criminology and Criminal Psychology degree
1
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
`
Institute of Criminal Justice Studies
MSc Criminology and Criminal Psychology Degree
Dissertation submitted as partial requirement for the award of MSc in Criminology and
Criminal Psychology.
Title: Why don't experienced specialist investigative police interviewers utilise cognitive
techniques during significant witness interviews?
Submitted by Mark Oldershaw
I confirm that, except where indicated through the proper use of citations and references, this
is my own original work. I confirm that, subject to final approval by the Board of Examiners
of the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, a copy of this Dissertation may be placed upon the
shelves of the library of the University of Portsmouth and/or made available electronically in
the Library Dissertation repository and may be circulated as required.
Signed
Date 18th October 2012
2
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
ABSTRACT
Why don't experienced specialist investigative police interviewers utilise cognitive
techniques during significant witness interviews?
The aim of this research was to identify the reasons why cognitive techniques taught during
specialist investigative interview training were not being utilised by practitioners in real life
interviews. The objective was to find out from the police interviewers themselves why the
cognitive techniques that form part of the ECI model are not being used. This was done by
interviewing forty specialist investigative interviewers of the Devon and Cornwall
Constabulary by way of a semi-structured questionnaire. The research identified a highly
significant positive correlation between the interviewers perceptions of effectiveness and their
reported frequency of use of each of the techniques. This study discovered that the cognitive
interview techniques of change perspective and temporal order were reported to be the least
frequently used and were also considered to be the least effective. It is argued that the
officers perceptions of ineffectiveness regarding the temporal order and change perspective
techniques are a direct cause for their lack of use in significant witness interviews. Several
reasons were identified as to why these techniques were considered ineffective.
Both
techniques were reported to have been found to confuse witnesses during the interview
process and officers also stated that once these techniques had failed on one occasion they
would be reluctant to try them again. The change perspective technique was reported by
officers to be disliked and inadequately trained.
Concerns were also raised about this
technique obtaining hypothetical information from witnesses, which may be unreliable in
court. The TO technique was reported to be too difficult to perform and was also considered
dependant on witness capability or intelligence as to whether it would be effective.
3
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It would not have been possible to undertake this piece of work without the assistance,
guidance and inspiration of a number of people whom I wish to thank:
Dr Becky Milne – my dissertation supervisor.
Detective Inspector Gregg Dawe my first line manager.
All of the ‘ABE Significant’ interviewer’s of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.
Most importantly my wife Alice and children Ellie and James, who have had to endure a
significant loss of quality family time whilst I have been taking the time out to study for this
research. Thanks guys it was hugely appreciated.
4
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Page
List of tables
6
Introduction
7
Chapter 1 – Literature Review
9
Chapter 2 – Methodology
26
Chapter 3 – Results
36
Chapter 4 – Discussion
50
Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Recommendations
62
Appendix ‘A’ – Questionnaire
65
Appendix ‘B’ – Excel and SPSS spreadsheets
73
Bibliography
74
5
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
Page
Table 1
The Enhanced Cognitive Interview model
19
Table 2
Period of time since participants initial training
39
Table 3
Mean number of interviews undertaken as lead interviewer
40
Table 4
Mean number of interviews undertaken as monitor
41
Table 5
Means table for the participants reported use and their perceived
44
effectiveness of each of the ECI techniques
6
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
INTRODUCTION
Chapter one identifies the importance of witness evidence in criminal proceedings before
describing the history, nature and extent of police interview training in the United Kingdom.
It explores the development of both the cognitive and enhanced cognitive interviews together
with the research that has examined their effectiveness. It also discusses the research which
has looked at the practitioner’s practical application of the various techniques to real life
interviews highlighting how some techniques are used more frequently than others. It ends by
exposing that the research undertaken to date had failed to examine the reasons as to why
some techniques are used less frequently than others.
Chapter two details the methodology which has been used in this research. It describes the
questionnaire design and the subsequent processes which were undergone in order to perform
this research. It also provides information about the sample of officers who were interviewed
during this study and explains the ethical considerations made prior to the commencement of
this research.
Chapter three details the results of this study and begins with the identification of the
demographic information of the sample. It also examines the participant’s experience of
training and their cognitive interview knowledge. The chapter then identifies the samples
reported frequency of use and their feelings of effectiveness of each of the cognitive interview
7
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
techniques. In the final section of this chapter the participant’s experience of supervision and
feedback is examined.
Chapter four contains a discussion concerning the relevance of the results of this study in
relation to the real life application of the ECI model to significant witness interviews.
Comparisons are made between the results of the current study against the findings of that of
previous research. The chapter will also expose a number of reasons from the practitioners
themselves as to why the change perspective and change of temporal order techniques are not
so frequently used. At the end of this chapter the limitations of this research are examined.
Chapter five is the final chapter in this dissertation which contains the conclusions from this
research and also proposed recommendations which aim to improve the quality of witness
interviewing in the future.
8
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Chapter 1 – Literature Review
This chapter begins by highlighting the importance of witness evidence in criminal
proceedings before moving on to identify the definition of both an interview and also the legal
classification of different categories of witnesses according to United Kingdom (UK) Law.
The chapter then identifies the history, nature and extent of police interview training in the
UK.
The development of both the Cognitive Interview (CI) and Enhanced Cognitive
Interview (ECI) are also discussed before critical examination takes place of the research into
the effectiveness of the CI/ECI as methods of obtaining eye witness evidence.
Finally
research which has explored the effects of CI training and also the perceived effectiveness and
frequency of use of each of the cognitive techniques is examined. A knowledge gap in this
area of research is identified as the reasons as to why certain cognitive techniques are not
being used by police interviewers, has not been fully explored. This gap in knowledge forms
the basis for the research being undertaken in this dissertation.
A police investigation generally seeks to answer two questions, namely what has happened
and who was responsible (Dando & Milne, 2009, p147). The answers to these questions in
modern criminal investigations can be established by gathering information from a range of
different sources. One of the most important sources in identifying a perpetrator of a crime is
the information provided by witnesses. The Core Investigative Doctrine produced by the
National Centre of Policing Excellence (NCPE) highlights how witness information can direct
an investigation from the outset (NCPE, 2005, p85) and the murder investigation manual
(NCPE, 2006, p198) states “the success of any homicide investigation depends largely on the
9
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
accuracy and detail of the material obtained from witnesses”. Witness evidence is also
considered to be of major significance to the criminal justice system (Dando, Wilcock, Milne
& Henry, 2009, p713) because comprehensive accounts can determine whether a case is
successfully prosecuted (Fyfe & Smith, 2007, p450).
Two leading defence counsel
themselves contended, “The bedrock of the adversarial process is the evidence of witnesses
for the prosecution, not the confession of the accused” (Wolchover & Heaton-Armstrong,
1997, p855). Research has further identified that witness testimony when presented at court is
a significant factor that can influence the outcome of proceedings (Geiselman & Fisher, 1986,
p26). Therefore, obtaining full and accurate witness accounts is of paramount importance to
ensure justice prevails (Memon & Bull, 1991, p291).
The term witness is used hereafter to describe both a bystander who has seen a crime
occurring and also the victim of a crime themselves. Numerous agencies converse with
witnesses, although in the majority of criminal investigations it is the police who gather their
information. The term used for this process is an interview which involves communication
between the officer and witness to establish an account of the event that was seen or
experienced. Each individual involved in the interview process communicates information
based on how they define the world and also in relation to their own past encounters of life’s
many and varied experiences (Shepherd, 1991, p42).
The interviewing of witnesses in
criminal investigations is a fundamental function of policing worldwide (Griffiths & Milne,
2005, p167). Traditionally police interviews were recorded by a written statement under
section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 although since the introduction of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 a visual recording of the communication is now sometimes legally required.
This is dependent on whether a witness is legally defined as significant, vulnerable or
intimidated.
10
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Vulnerable witnesses are defined by section 16 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
(as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009). Under section 16(1) Children under the age
of 18 are defined as vulnerable by reason of their age. Section 16(2) also identifies the
following three types of witness as vulnerable:

Witnesses who have a mental disorder as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983 (as
amended by the Mental Health Act 2007).

Witnesses significantly impaired in relation to intelligence and social functioning
(witnesses who have a learning disability); and

Witnesses who have a physical disability.
Intimidated witnesses are defined by section 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence
Act 1999 as those whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or
distress. These definitions have been defined in the Home Office Publication “Achieving Best
Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses and
using Special Measures” (Home Office, 2011). Significant witnesses are defined in the
murder investigation manual (NCPE, 2006, p204) as such if they “Have claimed to have
witnessed, visually or otherwise, an indictable offence, part of such an offence or events
closely connected with it (including any incriminating comments made by the suspected
offender either before or after the offence); and/or have a particular relationship to the victim
or have a central position in an investigation into an indictable offence”. This definition is
rather subjective and serves as a catchall allowing any kind of witness to be included in this
category if they are deemed by the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) to occupy a central
11
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
position in the investigation of an indictable offence. This research focuses specifically on the
officers of D&CC who have been trained to interview ‘significant witnesses’.
During the 1980s there were several high profile miscarriages of justice resulting from false
confessions being made by suspects (Snook, Eastwood, Stinson, Tedeschini & House, 2010,
p207) which led to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 being introduced to protect
detained persons’ rights. Part of this new legislation introduced the tape recording of suspect
interviews to prevent a repetition of these earlier miscarriages of justice. The availability of
these recordings led to a significant amount of research into police interviewing.
This
prolonged period of scrutiny on suspect interviewing, has more recently led to focus falling
on the evidence of significant witnesses in criminal proceedings (Griffiths & Milne, 2005,
p168). In fact during the 1980s there were more empirical studies made into eyewitness
testimony than in any other area (Kapardis, 2003, p22).
Investigative interviewing is a highly complex skill which requires appropriate training
although prior to the early 1990s police officers received little or no interview training
(George, 1991, p5). Instead they relied upon learning from colleagues or supervisors ‘on-thejob’ (Clifford & George, 1996, p231). As a result their interviews were found to be poorly
conducted due to ineffective communication on behalf of the officers (Dando & Milne, 2009,
p4).
Following advice from academics in 1992 a national police training package for
interviewing called PEACE was introduced in England and Wales (Gudjonsson, 2007, p470).
The introduction of PEACE training was considered to be “a significant step in the evolution
of investigative interviewing” (Griffiths, 2008, p5).
12
The package was primarily suspect
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
focused and provided two methods of obtaining information: conversation management (CM)
and the CI (Conway & Holmes, 2008, p32).
In 2001 Clarke and Milne (2001, p106) conducted an evaluation of police interviewing in the
UK and found that despite the introduction of the PEACE interview training model a poor
skill level of interviewing remained. Following their recommendations in 2002 the National
Investigative Interview Strategic Steering Group introduced a new five-tier interview strategy.
This tiered system was designed to equip officers with appropriate training depending on
service length and crime type (Griffiths & Milne, 2005, p167). The tiered system has more
recently been linked into the Professionalising Investigation Programme (PIP) which allows
police learning, development and also a structured assessment process according to levels of
investigative experience (NCPE, 2006a). Officers new to investigative roles start at PIP level
one, the more experienced detectives are PIP level two whilst SIO’s and interview advisors
are PIP level three. The PIP incorporates a limited amount of training in the CI/ECI into
interview training at all levels.
The proven effectiveness of the CI/ECI in the academic world has led to its inclusion in all
UK police interview training (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p102). The current England
and Wales police training is called the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme.
One week of this training package is dedicated to interviewing and it is delivered to all
officers during their two year probationer period in all 43 independent UK police forces.
However only two days of this training addresses the interviewing of witnesses. This is
clearly not long enough considering that witness evidence is of such high importance to the
obtaining of a successful prosecution.
13
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
The CI was developed in 1984 by Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman, designed to enhance
both the quality and quantity of information obtained from witnesses. Several retrieval
strategies were identified which were effective in promoting the access of otherwise
inaccessible information (Geiselman, Fisher, Firstenberg, Hutton, Sullivan, Avetissian &
Prosk, 1984, p74). The CI enhances interviewee memory performance through cognitive
based retrieval-enhancement techniques. It utilises what psychologists know about human
memory and also knowledge on social interactions including how to best manage
communication between an interviewee and interviewer (Memon, 1999, p344). The original
CI consisted of four retrieval components namely; (i) mental reinstatement of context (MRC),
(ii) report everything (RE), (iii) recall in a variety of temporal orders (TO), and (iv) change
perspectives (CP) (Geiselman, Fisher, Cohen, Holland, & Surtes, 1986, p33). These four
components were included in the CI model based on earlier studies into memory by Tulving
and Thompson (1973, p353) and Bower in 1967 (Gross, 2009, p357).
The MRC technique encourages the witness to mentally reinstate the psychological and
physical environment at the time of the to-be-remembered (TBR) event in order to trigger
retrieval cues. Through a process of mini statements with regular pauses the interviewer
recreates the context of the TBR event (Dando & Milne, 2009, p151) helping interviewees to
focus and stopping other distractions from hindering memory recall. The beneficial effects of
MRC have been well established (Memon, 1999, p344).
The RE component allows witnesses to describe all the information they have stored
regarding the TBR event.
Interviewees are unlikely to be familiar with the interview
procedure and will expect the police to have knowledge about the event and as a result may
14
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
withhold important information (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p8). By reporting everything, more
information is available and composite pieces of information can be of great investigative
value (Dando & Milne, 2009, p154). Partial or apparently insignificant information may also
serve as a cue to other previously inaccessible memory codes. This component is also
important to a successful interview process as from an early age people learn to interact with
each other according to social rules. One such rule known as the ‘maxim of quantity’ is
where it is considered rude to dominate a conversation by doing the majority of the talking.
In order to break this communication rule the RE instruction lets the interviewee know it is
acceptable to be doing all the talking (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p8). For these reasons the RE
component was included in the CI.
The TO component is based on the theoretical assumption that memory retrieval can be
influenced by prior knowledge and the application of schemas and scripts (Dando & Milne,
2009, p154). Bartlett’s 1932 (cited in Gross, 2009, p228) theory of reconstructive memory
contended knowledge was stored in memory as a set of schemas. A chronological witness’s
account allows the use of schemas and scripts from previous knowledge to assist in
formulating an account.
Through encouragement to recall the TBR event in different
sequences the use of scripts to recall information is reduced. By recalling events in reverse
order the witness is forced to examine their actual memory looking for benchmarks
(Geiselman & Fisher, 1986, p28). This method causes the interviewee to examine memory in
a different way resulting in additional information being reported.
The CP technique aims to access memory codes that other methods failed to reach. In this
approach the interviewee is asked to recall the TBR event from the perspective of another
15
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
person who was present (Milne & Bull, 1999, p37). A study by Anderson and Pichert in 1978
(cited in Milne & Bull, 1999, p37) led to the inclusion of this technique. In this study
participants were asked to read a narrative about two boys who visited a house whilst
truanting from school. The narrative contained a lot of descriptive information about the
house such as the location of burglar alarms and rising damp as examples. The sample were
then split in two and were asked to supply as much information as they could about the house
from either the perspective of a house buyer or burglar. Once the participants had written
down as much information as they could remember about the narrative they were told to shift
perspectives.
More detail was found to be forthcoming once the group had shifted
perspectives.
This changing of perspectives afforded participants to remember more
information and was therefore included in the CI model as a method to assist with memory
recall. Despite this technique serving as a useful tool in obtaining more information there has
been some concern regarding its use as it may confuse witnesses or cause them to speculate
(Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p10).
Geiselman et al (1984, p79) conducted the first evaluation of the CI and found an 84%
accuracy rate. Another laboratory study by Brock, Fisher and Cutler (1999, p29) found that
the CI elicited approximately 70% more correct facts compared to a standard police interview
and at equivalent accuracy rates both five minutes and 2 weeks after viewing a recording of a
traffic accident. Several other similar studies have corroborated the CI’s usefulness regardless
of delay (Fisher, 2010, p34). Centofanti and Reece (2006, p678) discovered the CI increased
correct recall by 35% over a standard interview without an accompanying increase in errors or
confabulations. These findings have all been consistently corroborated by numerous other
studies (Dando & Milne, 2009, p12).
Kohnken, Milne, Memom and Bull (1999, p19)
conducted a meta-analysis of 42 laboratory tests concerning the CI to see its effects on correct
16
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
and incorrect recall concluding 41% more correct information was recalled using the CI
compared to a standard interview. These findings have more recently been expanded upon by
Memon, Meissner and Fraser (2010, p2) who conducted a new meta-analysis including the
older research in company with twenty more recent papers. Their study again replicated the
earlier findings of a large and significant increase in correct details with only a small increase
of errors.
One criticism of a majority of the earlier research into the CI was that it was conducted in an
artificial context in laboratories using psychology students as interviewers and witnesses
(Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p57). This laboratory based research can however never fully
replicate real life experiences of lengthy and traumatic events (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p26).
These factors can include the effect of violence, alcohol, drugs or stress at the time of
encoding information (Kapardis, 2003, p53). Earlier studies into the effectiveness of the CI
also failed to examine how competent interviewers were in their understanding of the
cognitive techniques (Memon & Bull, 1991, p292) and neglected to specify the amount and
quality of training provision (Memon & Higham, 1999, p190). These studies also relied on
questionnaires to the neglect of interviewer-interviewee interaction.
Despite such
shortcomings research has consistently shown that the CI produces significantly more
information during recall without compromising its quality and as a result the CI has been
described as “one of the most exciting developments in the investigation of eyewitness
memory” (Memon & Higham, 1999, p192).
After acknowledging the downfalls of laboratory based studies Fisher, Geiselman and
Raymond (1987, p177) turned their attention to real-life, examining eleven tape recorded
17
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
police interviews undertaken by eight experienced detectives. They identified that police
interviews lacked structure and officers used poor questioning techniques, frequently
interrupted witnesses, and displayed a general lack of communication skills. These findings
were corroborated by Fisher, Geiselman, Raymond, Jurkevich, and Warhaftig (1987, p291)
who also found the style of police questioning to be poor with a direct affect on the level and
quality of information recalled. They proposed that interviewer behaviour could potentially
seriously hinder the recall of information. These findings meant the efficacy of the CI was
likely to be compromised also creating the possibility that valuable information would be lost
(Milne & Bull, 1999, p3). Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond (1987, p184) therefore made
several recommendations to improve police interview techniques based on the principles of
the social psychology of communication.
As a result the ECI was developed in order to adapt the original CI to incorporate these
changes with a conversational element added to the four original components (Dando &
Milne, 2009, p14). Several aspects of key communication skills were added to the model
addressing many of the problems identified during the analysis of real police officers
interviews (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p55). The ECI consists of nine phases which are a
combination of effective communication skills and cognitive tools that can be used to assist
with memory retrieval (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p12). The nine phases of the ECI are
displayed in the table overleaf:
18
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Table 1 – The Enhanced Cognitive Interview model
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Greet and personalise
Establish rapport
Introduction
Focused retrieval
Explain the aims of the Concentrate hard
interview
Report Everything
Transfer control
Context reinstatement
Open ended question
Initiate a free report
Allow pauses without interruption
Appropriate non verbal communication
Report everything
Interviewee compatible questions
Questioning
Use of don’t know or understand is ok
Open and appropriate closed questions
Phase 5
Change the temporal order
Varied and extensive retrieval Change perspectives
Focus on all senses
Phase 6
Important
Questions
Phase 7
Summary
Clarification, addition and amendment
Phase 8
Closure
Return to rapport
Explain future processes
Provide contact details
Phase 9
Evaluation
Investigative Following advice from interview advisor or
monitor
(Adapted from Milne, 2004, p2)
As can be seen from these nine phases the interview model is structured in such a way as to
put the witness at ease, ensure effective communication and maximise the number of memory
recall attempts during the interview process.
19
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
The first empirical investigation into the effectiveness of the ECI revealed that the technique
elicited 45% more correct items of information compared to the original CI with no difference
in the amount of erroneous recall (Fisher, Geiselman, Raymond, Jurkevich & Warhaftig,
1987, p294).
Fisher, Geiselman and Amador (1989, p722) discovered that 47% more
information was obtained by officers employing the ECI technique. A large amount of
research has now demonstrated that the CI/ECI is a reliable interviewing technique across
various populations (Milne & Bull, 2002, p743) including children (Milne & Bull, 2003, p21)
(Akehurst, Milne & Kohnken, 2003, p97), children and adults with or without learning
difficulties (Milne, 1997, p364) and the older adult (Wright & Holliday, 2005, p211). These
advantages in enhancing the quantity and quality of witness information have been
established in research conducted in the UK, USA, Canada as well as a number of European
countries (Dando & Milne, 2009, p165). Some studies have however reported a slight
increase in the amount of incorrect information recalled when using the CI (Dando, Wilcock
& Milne, 2008, p60) and also unreported information is ignored in terms of both amount and
nature as this information is unavailable to researchers (Memon & Higham, 1999, p186).
Despite such criticism the ECI is now the method globally acknowledged as the most
appropriate tool for obtaining witness evidence. All police forces in England and Wales now
incorporate the ECI into interview training with many utilising psychologists to deliver the
theory (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p102). More recent research into the CI/ECI has
started to focus on determining the efficacy of particular techniques of the CI rather than the
efficacy of the CI as a whole (Memon & Higham, 1999, p184).
Several studies have
identified an entire lack of use of the CI components or that some parts of the CI are used
more frequently and effectively than others (Dando & Milne, 2009, p168).
20
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Clifford and George (1996, p231) examined the nature of police interviewers behaviour and
the amount of information obtained following three different types of investigative interview
training. Their control group were not trained at all whilst the other groups were trained in
either, the CI, CM or both models. They discovered that the interview behaviour of the CI
only trained officers changed much more than any of the other groups between pre and post
training phases. One positive outcome of the CI training was that experienced detectives were
more likely to ask for uninterrupted free recall. Clifford and George (1996) had however
anticipated the use of cognitive techniques would have increased with the CI trained group
although they discovered reluctance by the interviewers to utilise each of the techniques
equally. The CP and TO technique were seldom used irrespective of the type of interviewer
or type of incident that had been witnessed (Clifford & George, 1996, p237). Similarly the CI
and CM trained grouped failed to use TO and only one participant used the CP technique
(Clifford & George, 1996, p238). They concluded that the CP technique may be perceived as
a difficult manoeuvre and the TO technique was restrictive to particular scenarios or sequence
of events (Clifford & George, 1996, p244). This study however only had a small sample and
it also failed to include many of the social components of the CI (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff,
1999, p103).
Kebbell, Milne and Wagstaff (1999, p101) interviewed 96 officers trained in the CI by use of
a questionnaire and identified a consensus by those officers that some of the techniques were
used more often than others and were perceived to be more effective. Rated as most effective
and more frequently used were rapport, RE, focused retrieval, witness compatible questioning
and MRC. Rated as less useful and less frequently used were transfer control, CP and TO.
This was found to be the case despite the majority of respondents in their study believing that
the CI elicited more correct information from witnesses than a standard interview (Kebbell,
21
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p109). They proposed that the less useful and frequently used
techniques were more difficult to communicate to witnesses and also witnesses might find
them confusing to use.
Clarke and Milne (2001, p108) examined 75 UK real-life witness interviews and found no
evidence at all of the CI procedure having been used in 83% of cases. Other UK research by
Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2009, p679) studied 48 inexperienced police officers interviews
and found that within a short time of their initial PEACE interview training that not even one
officer applied or even attempted to apply the CI in its entirety. They also discovered some of
the cognitive techniques were used significantly more frequently than others. The Tier 1
training did not however include the CP or TO technique so their research did not cover this.
Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p59) interviewed 221 inexperienced police officers
regarding their perceived witness interviewing practices. They discovered some officers
reported that they used some of the PEACE CI techniques more frequently than others and
also perceived some techniques to be more effective than others. Reported as the most
frequently used techniques were establish rapport, uninterrupted account, explain the
interview process and RE. The techniques least used were recall in a variety of TO and CP
which most subjects reported never or rarely using.
To date only a limited amount of research has examined the effects of CI interview training
on actual interviewer behaviour. Memon and Higham (1999, p191) proposed that the effects
of training are complex and can depend on a number of factors including duration, quality,
22
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
background of the interviewers and also attitudes towards training. Memon, Bull and Smith
(1995, p53) examined the effect of CI training on 38 experienced police officers and found
the training to have little impact on the interviewing style of officers as the CI techniques
were not appropriately used and did not produce any significant increases in information
elicited from witnesses.
The techniques of MRC, CP and free recall were only made
moderately clear by officers and were not always appropriately used (Memon, Bull & Smith,
1995, p63). It seemed the interviewers had difficulty in explaining what was required to
witnesses and did not make full use of the CI techniques available to them. Memon, Bull and
Smith (1995, p64) argued such a finding questions the ecological validity of the previous
laboratory based studies of the CI/ECI. They also proposed, that without sufficient training
and motivation to use the techniques appropriately the CI would not be effective (Memon,
Bull & Smith, 1995, p66). Their study did however only use a limited detail training phase of
four hours duration.
Why then after the plethora of research identifying such positive outcomes regarding the
CI/ECI aren’t police investigative interviewers using them to their full capability? It seems
various complex and interlinked factors are associated with the practical application of the CI
procedure.
Fisher, Geiselman and Amador (1989, p726) noted the CI makes extensive
demands on the interviewer. Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p68) identified inexperienced
investigators found it difficult and cumbersome for use with volume crime interviews also
identifying that participating officers felt under pressure, inadequately trained and ill equipped
to conduct a PEACE CI. Research by Kebbell, Milne and Wagstaff (1999, p103) identified
front line officers felt they did not have the time to conduct a full CI. A finding confirmed by
Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2009, p22) who highlighted that the CI takes a long time to
conduct and police officers experience considerable time constraints whilst on duty. Other
23
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
factors which have been identified as affecting the practical application of a CI include
officer’s workloads and minimal supervision (Dando, Wilcock & Milne, 2008, p62). Dando,
Wilcock and Milne (2009, p679) proposed either the CI procedure taught to novice police
officers is either too complex or the training they received was insufficient to equip them with
the necessary skills to effectively apply the procedure. A conclusion which could therefore be
drawn from the actual application of the CI is that officers appear un-convinced about its real
world applicability in its full form (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p23).
Only a scarce amount of research has examined the implications of training for specialist or
advanced investigative interviewers. Griffiths (2008, p5) conducted the first evaluation of an
advanced tier three interview programme for 35 experienced detectives who received three
days ECI training in addition to a 3 week ‘suspect’ interview course. Griffiths examined
interviews with witnesses for major crimes discovering that despite the ECI training the
officers did not make full use of the CI techniques and some techniques were frequently
omitted. He discovered that rapport building, summarising, CP and TO were all poorly
performed or even missing in their entirety from the interviews he assessed. This situation is
not unique to the UK as cognitive techniques taught in training have also been found to be
missing from interviews conducted by the Canadian police (Snook & Keating, 2010, p160)
(Wright & Alison, 2004, p137). Griffiths (2008, p171) suggests that one explanation for these
omissions may be that officers were electing not to use areas of the model they perceived to
be less effective. He concluded that “rather than a deliberate use of certain mnemonics
through a conscious decision the evidence suggests the advanced interviewers lack skill in this
area even after specialist training” (Griffiths, 2008, p172). However his results could be
attributable to the short period of only three days training.
24
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
More recent research by Gartrell (2011, p38) has studied the transference of interview skills
training into the workplace through the examination of 40 real life interviews from live
investigations’ in Devon and Cornwall. His study looked at the interviewing practices of
‘ABE Significant’ interviewers who had undergone a five day witness interviewing training
course.
He discovered the overall interview quality of these advanced investigative
interviewers was below PIP Level 1 PEACE standard and also that the trained cognitive
techniques remained essentially unused, a finding which corroborates the earlier research.
Gartrell’s study also identified both a lack of demonstration and a lack of understanding of the
cognitive techniques used during significant witness interviews.
His research did not
however examine the reasons why the cogntive techniques were ommitted from use.
This literature review has identified from numerous academic studies, that cognitive
techniques are not being transferred from interview training into practice during real life
interviews (Dando & Milne, 2009, p168). The previous research undertaken to date however
has not been consistent as to which of the ECI techniques are viewed as the most effective by
investigative interviewers (Griffiths, 2008, p172) and has also failed to identify why certain
techniques of the ECI are used less frequently than others. This research project therefore
aimed to examine why, certain techniques of the CI aren’t being used by a sample of
experienced PIP level two detectives whose interviews had already been found by Gartrell
(2011) to be lacking in the use of the CI techniques taught during training. The research has
explored whether the officers had understood the component parts of the ECI and also
identified from the participants themselves the reasons behind why the techniques are not
being used. The findings of this research are important as they begin to fill the knowledge
gap in this area and can also be used to adapt future interview training to ensure a better use of
cognitive techniques in the future promoting more reliable significant witness information.
25
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY
Aims
As detailed in the first chapter the literature review identified a significant amount of research
which shows that various cognitive techniques are not being used by practitioners of
investigative interviewing.
Despite such findings the reasons as to why specialist
investigative interviewers failed to use certain cognitive techniques has not been fully
explored. As a result this research aimed to explore specialist investigative interviewers
understanding of the nine phases of the ECI and identify from the practioners themselves why
certain cognitive techniques were not being used in significant witness interviews.
Research Strategy
An inductive research strategy was undertaken to explore why specialist investigative
interviewers were not using the cognitive techniques taught during training. This research
design was chosen as it is more flexible than deductive research (Perri & Bellamy, 2012, p77)
and also allowed the researcher to probe for detailed information regarding the samples’
reluctance to use certain cognitive techniques. The collection of this kind of primary research
data can take place using one of three methods namely (i) questionnaires, (ii) interviews or
(iii) observations. Careful consideration was given to the administration of the data gathering
phase of the research. Self administered interviews were avoided as they receive a low
response rate and any questions that appear ambiguous or are misunderstood lead to the
provision of false data by participants (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell &
Saunders, 1996, p48). Instead semi-structured face to face interviews using a questionnaire
26
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
were chosen as this was the most likely method of obtaining current, detailed and accurate
information from the investigative interviewers. This method also allowed the researcher to
seek clarification on any points directly from the subjects (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice,
Rothwell & Saunders, 1996, p25).
Procedure
In order to gain authorisation for interviewing Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (D&CC)
police officers an e-mail was sent to the Superintendant who was the organisational lead on
investigative interviewing. His approval was granted on the condition that the information
obtained during the research could be used to improve the quality of investigative
interviewing within the researchers organisation, through the identification of best practice
and also modification of future training. Following authorisation for the study an internal email explaining the purpose of the research and also asking for participatory consent was sent
out to a target sample of 40 participants. Initially the researcher received a low response rate
to the e-mail so follow up phone calls and e-mails were made eventually resulting in a more
satisfactory response level. All participants were required to e-mail the researcher with their
full informed consent to participate in the study. The sample were not offered any form of
payment for their assistance with the research and the time during which they were
interviewed formed part of their normal working day.
The sample size (N=40) was chosen to ensure an appropriate quantity of responses could be
obtained and analysed from a significant representative proportion (75%) of those employed
to undertake significant witness interviews in the force area studied (N=53). A sample size of
this magnitude was considered to be beneficial as it increases the generisability of the results
27
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
obtained during the study (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996,
p53). The sample selection was not random and consisted of a 20/20 split of male to female
participants. Half of the participants (n=20) were also chosen as they had formed part of
Gartrell’s (2011) sample group of specialist investigative interviewers whose significant
witness interviews had already been identified as demonstrating inadequate use and
understanding of the cognitive techniques. This was a deliberate decision made to ensure that
at least half of the sample had already been found to not be using all the cognitive techniques
during their significant witness interviews.
Ethics
Numerous ethical issues were considered prior to the commencement of this study despite the
fact that none of the participants were ever going to be subject to any form of harm. All of the
participants were suitably briefed regarding the purpose of the research and were also made
aware they could withdraw at any point. The anonymity of the interviews assessed by
Gartrell (2011) meant the researcher conducting this research would not be aware of the level
to which each individual interview was scored thus reducing the risk of role conflict. All data
obtained from participants was held securely on a professional organisations computer
network in accordance with the policing area's internal policies regarding the storage of
confidential data. During the process of the results analysis all data obtained had identifying
features removed to ensure confidentiality for participants. Only a limited amount of personal
data was obtained from the sample during the data collection process which further
guaranteed anonymity for them. The author of this research project alone was the sole
collector of the initial data further reducing the possibility of any issues regarding
participant’s anonymity. The research costs for this project were kept to a minimum as the
28
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
researcher conducted the interviews within his own workplace with the D&CC incurring all
costs in relation to transport when undertaking the interviews.
Materials
A questionnaire was devised (see appendix A) which allowed critical examination of
specialist investigative interviewers understanding of the nine phases of the ECI and also
exploration as to why the cognitive techniques therein were not being used in real life
significant witness interviews. A semi-structured questionnaire was chosen as it provides
structure to the interview and allows the interview to flow smoothly and in an orderly manner.
This method likewise assists with the recording and documentation of data in a standard
format which aids the processing of data (Hague, 1993, p12). This design was also chosen as
it allows flexibility and increased ability to probe participants in order to identify the reasons
behind certain answers allowing a more detailed, accurate and full understanding of the
information given by each participant (Hague, 1993, p12). It also afforded the participants the
freedom to explore the meaning of questions and ensure that any misunderstandings could
immediately be checked (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996,
p108). Descriptive research of this nature also allowed the researcher to seek clarification on
any points directly from the subjects (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders,
1996, p25). Although this method was time consuming it was favoured as it was the most
likely method to ensure a detailed understanding from the participants as to their choice of use
of one ECI technique over another and also allowed detailed exploration of their
understanding of the ECI model (Bell, 2007, p157).
29
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
The questionnaire included a mixture of one hundred and two open and closed questions. The
use of open questions was chosen as it allowed the gathering of ‘rich detail’ qualitative
information and also placed no restriction on the amount of detail in any given response
(Lowe, 2007, p79). Closed questions were also asked in order to establish quantitative data
which would allow later statistical analysis. The obtaining of information utilising this
method can however be fallible due to interviewer error whereby the researcher may read
questions incorrectly or record data incorrectly (Willis, 2005, p14). Another disadvantage of
this method is that the data gathering can be time consuming (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen,
Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996, p48).
A draft questionnaire was sent to the dissertation supervisor and a number of amendments
were made before a pilot of the questionnaire was undertaken. Piloting a questionnaire is
deemed beneficial as any ambiguity or questions requiring clarity can be identified and
changed (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996, p95). The pilot was
undertaken with a participant who is a fellow student at the University of Portsmouth who
holds a similar interest in the academic study of the ECI. The feedback was positive and only
a few minor changes were made to the questionnaire before the data gathering process began.
The questionnaire was stored on a laptop computer and was designed in such a way that there
was no limit to the responses given. It was divided into five sections:
Demographic information: In this section participants were asked for their age, gender,
ethnicity, rank, length of service, current role and educational achievements.
30
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Cognitive Interview Training: This section explored participants experience of ECI training
and identified when people had been trained, how they rated the training, how the training
could be improved and how confident they felt after the training had been completed.
Experience as a cognitive interviewer: This section was designed to identify the number of
interviews undertaken by the participants together with their experiences of using the ECI
with witnesses identifying other factors that affect the interviewing process. It also looked at
deployment to interviews and whether participants ever felt rushed to complete the ECI
process.
Current Cognitive Interview Knowledge: In this section the participants were asked to
name the four primary CI techniques and then explain their understanding of each of the
techniques. Then a number of questions were asked regarding the frequency of use and
perceived effectiveness of each of the techniques that form the ECI model. The participants
were invited to respond their answers by indicating on a five point Likert scale their own self
reported use of each of the techniques on a scale of 5 to 1. A ‘5’ rating showed a participant
to always try a technique, 4 often, 3 occasionally, 2 rarely with 1 indicative of never using the
technique. After the frequency of use in respect of each of the ECI phase’s participants were
then asked using a similar scale how effective they felt each technique was with 5 indicating
highly effective, 4 very, 3 quite, 2 not very, to 1 indicating not at all effective. Such scaled
response categories are advantageous because they allow the participant to make reliable
judgement on the scale (Hibberd & Bennett, 1990, p81). It was this section that had been
designed to ensure a full understanding as to why techniques were not being used.
Supervision and Feedback: In the final section several questions explored participant’s
experience of supervision and feedback with regard to their use of the ECI.
31
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Some of the questions which were included as part of the questionnaire were there on the
basis they would assist the researcher with the delivery of future training in the application of
the ECI within his own organisation.
These questions have not formed part of this
dissertation.
Once the questionnaire design had been finalised the researcher began travelling across the
D&CC to interview participants. Initially the administration of the questionnaire was done in
the form of face to face interviews. However due to the time involved and the economic cost
of travelling long distances to interview participants in this manner after 30 interviews had
been completed it was decided the last 10 should take place over the phone. The interviews
lasted between thirty and forty-five minutes each in duration.
Participants
D&CC currently has 3176 police officers and only 53 (2%) of these officers are currently
trained in obtaining evidence from significant witnesses using the ECI. This 2% of ECI
trained officer’s are spread across a vast geographical area covering the counties of both
Devon and Cornwall.
They also work in a wide range of departments including local
investigation, major crime investigation, child abuse investigation, traffic, armed response,
financial investigation, uniformed response, rape investigation and the Coroner’s office. The
sample selection for this research was not random and participants were selected from a range
of different locations and a number of different departments. This was done in order to ensure
an accurate reflection of information from the sample without bias towards any particular area
or department. At the time of the interviews the participants all held the skill title ‘ABE
32
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Significant’ and were the officers who D&CC would rely on to obtain eye witness evidence
from ‘significant witnesses’ to any major crimes committed within its boundaries.
The samples’ interview experience included obtaining evidence from eye witnesses who had
witnessed some of the most serious of incidents including terrorism, murder, rape, fatal
accidents and armed robberies. The interview process is conducted in one of two ways by the
D&CC. They mainly take place in one of ten interview suites located across the geographical
force area. The suites are situated away from main police buildings and are furnished to make
victims and witnesses feel relaxed in order to assist with rapport building. Next door to the
actual interview room is a room with the monitoring equipment where a second ‘ABE
Significant’ officer will monitor the interview process. The monitoring room is equipped
with Home Office approved recording equipment. Some circumstances dictate that remote
monitoring equipment is used so that interviews can take place at a witness’s home address,
hospital or any other appropriate destination. It is the responsibility of the interviewing team
to choose the most appropriate location in order to obtain the best possibly quality of evidence
from a witness.
The interviewing of practitioners was the only feasable way to answer the research question
and also served to increase the fundamental ecological validty of this research. The specialist
investigative interviewers in this study had all undertaken a one week Tier 2 PEACE
interviewing skills training course and also a one week ECI training course. On the first day
of the latter course legislation, policy and procedure was covered. Then two full days were
dedicated to memory theory and the ECI model of investigative interviewing. Over the final
two days of training practical application of the interview model was attempted by students
33
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
with stooge witnesses who had witnessed a staged incident. Immediately following this mock
interview process, students underwent peer assessment and received feedback from the
interviewees themselves. The student’s interviews were then also assessed by the course
trainer who is a Tier 5 interview advisor. Once the interviews had been formerly assessed and
were considered to be at a suitable level of ability the students were accredited with the skill
title ‘ABE Significant’ thus making them available to SIO’s for significant witness
interviews. No formal assessment of student’s knowledge occurred at the end of the course
and to date no student has failed to be accredited following the course.
The selection process for applicants to attend the course was role specific and required a
departmental recommendation to cover a skills gap within a given area. The majority of those
selected for training would have demonstrated the necessary interviewing attributes within
their roles and would have been put forward for ECI training by their first line supervisors.
The researcher underwent this training course in 2004 and has interviewed approximately
fifty witnesses using this model since that time. The courses commenced in 2000 and since
this time a total of 144 officers have been trained in the application of the ECI to real life
interviews. This number of trained officers has reduced to the current number of 53 following
retirement, promotion and a change of roles leading to a decline in the numbers of officers
accredited with the skill. The officers who deliver the training are Tier 3 interviewers and
Tier 5 interview advisors who hold current teaching qualifications.
To maintain the skill title ‘ABE Significant’ officers are required to attend a yearly one day
update training session. The training session involves a refreshment of knowledge around the
ECI model and serves to allow the discussion of issues surrounding its practical application.
34
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
D&CC policy dictates interviewers are also required to undertake a minimum of at least one
interview as monitor and one as lead interviewer each year to maintain the skill title. In
reality the skill title is maintained even if officers are not undertaking this minimum
requirement of interviews provided they can justify why they have not used the skill within
the given time period.
Scoring, Coding and Analysis
All data obtained during this research was saved on the researchers own personal laptop and a
back up copy of all data was also saved on a D&CC computer hard drive. In accordance with
the British Society of Criminology code of ethics towards participants (British Society of
Criminology, 2011) completed questionnaires were anonymised with each document being
attributed a random number of 1-40. Once sanitized the data provided by participants was
then transfered onto an Excel spreadsheet and also Version 20 SPSS to allow analysis of the
data. The Excel spreadsheet also contains the original questions from the questionnaire in
order to assist the reader. An electronic copy of both of these files is attached on a disc at
appendix B. The data obtained in response to the questionnaires was both quantative and
qualative in nature. The quantative data was transferred directly onto the spreadsheets whilst
the qualitative data was coded in order to assist with the analysis of the results. Details of the
coding used is also displayed on both of the attached spreadsheet files. The participants were
asked for information on a Likert scale about their reported frequency of use of the various
cognitive techniques and also how effective they believed each of the techniques to be. The
answers to these questions allowed analysis of the results utilising Pearson r to establish if the
two were correlated. The next chapter details the results obtained during this study following
the analysis which has been undertaken on the raw data.
35
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
CHAPTER 3 - RESULTS
This chapter reports on the findings of this research firstly by identifying the demographic
details of the sample. Then the participant’s experience of ECI training is explored before
information is provided about their practical experience of undertaking real life ECI’s.
Following on from this factors that affect both interviewer and interviewee performance
during the interview process are highlighted. The samples knowledge and understanding of
the nine phases of the ECI model is then examined together with the interviewers reported use
and their perceived effectiveness of each of the ECI techniques. In the final section of this
chapter the level of supervision and assessment that officers in the D&CC receive is
identified.
Demographic information
In this section of the questionnaire participants were asked questions regarding their age,
gender, ethnicity, rank, length of service, length within current role, other relevant police
interview training and educational achievements. The interviewed sample (N =40) consisted
of twenty male and twenty female participants all of whom self-defined themselves as of
White European ethnicity. The mean age of participants was 44.63 years (SD 6.04) with a
range of between 34 and 57 years. Eight of the participants were uniformed police officers,
twenty-six were detective constables and six were supervisors of the rank of Sergeant. The
participants worked in the following roles for the D&CC: Major Crime Investigation (n=17);
Child Abuse Investigation (n=5); Uniform, Armed Response or Traffic Constables (n=10);
36
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Financial Investigation (n=1); Local Criminal Investigation Department (n=5); Crime
Training (n=1) and the Coroner’s Office (n=1). The participants had served in their current
role on average 5.22 years (SD 4.02) with a range of between 3 months and 18 years. The
mean length of service was 20.68 years (SD 6.24) with a range from 10 to 40 years.
With regards to education 11 participants held degree level qualifications, 4 held a diploma or
equivalent qualification, 13 held A-levels with the remaining 12 holding GCSE or O-Level
equivalents. Other relevant interview training undertaken by the sample shows that 28 were
also ‘ABE vulnerable’ trained, 14 were ‘ABE child’ trained, 14 were ‘Advanced Suspect
Interview’ trained and one participant was trained as a Tier 5 interview advisor. The ‘ABE
vulnerable’ trained officers are trained to deal with witnesses who are defined vulnerable by
section 16(2) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (as amended by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009). The ‘ABE Child’ trained officers have been trained to
interview young persons under the age of 18 years in accordance with section 16(1) of the
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act
2009). The ‘Advanced Suspect Interview’ training is a three week course which prepares
officer’s to interview for the most complex or serious of crimes such as murder. A ‘Tier 5
Interview Advisor’ is a supervisory officer who has been trained to oversee the interviewing
practices during serious investigations.
What did participants think about their cognitive interview training?
This section of the questionnaire explored participant’s experience of CI training and
identified when people had been trained, how they rated the training, and also how confident
37
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
they felt to undertake an ECI after the training. Participants were asked how they rated the
training course utilising a Likert scale with 5 representing excellent, 4 representing good, 3
representing average, 2 representing below average and 1 representing poor. This identified
that half (n=20) of the participants rated the training as excellent with a further 19 rating it as
good. The training was reported to be appropriate in length by 34 (85%) participants and 39
(97.5%) claimed they had fully understood the course content. A Likert scale was again used
to establish participants feelings of competence to undertake ECI’s after training with 5
representing fully, 4 representing fairly, 3 representing indifferent, 2 representing not so and 1
representing not at all. This showed 12 (30%) participants felt fully competent with a further
17 (42.5%) feeling fairly confident to lead interviews after the training. Only one person who
did not want to attend the training course in the first instance reported they were not at all well
equipped or competent to conduct interviews.
When asked how an improvement in confidence to undertake CI could be made, 18 (45%)
reported their confidence would increase after practical experience with 7 (17.5%) stating
they had felt confident straight after the training based on their previous ABE visually
recorded interview experience. With regards to the yearly update training offered by D&CC
only 22 (55%) participants felt they had received regular and meaningful training. All bar one
participant (n=39) felt the update training would improve performance. Table 2 shows the
participant’s period of time since initial ECI training and reveals that 36 (90%) of the
participants had been trained at least four years prior to this study and 17 (42.5%) participants
had been trained at least eight years prior to this research. Only 5 (12.5%) participants had
been trained over ten years ago.
38
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Table 2 showing period of time since initial training
Time since training (years)
Participants
M
SD
Over 10
5
11.00
NaN
Between 8 and 10
12
8.76
0.86
Between 4 and 7
19
5.49
0.90
Under 4
4
2.25
0.50
The mean period of time since training was 6.83 years (SD 2.65). When asked if participants
had been allowed the opportunity to conduct enough ECI’s to maintain skill and motivational
levels, 22 (55%) reported they had not, expressing a desire to undertake more interviews. A
further 7 (17.5%) members of the sample believed that the D&CC should have less people
trained to allow more opportunity for undertaking interviews. Three officers reported that
candidates for the training should not have been forced onto the course.
What information did the sample provide about their experience as
cognitive interviewers?
This section was designed to identify the experience of the sample gauged by the number of
interviews they had undertaken. It looked at the deployment of officers to interviews and
explored whether participants ever felt rushed to complete the ECI process. It also examined
their experiences of using the ECI with witnesses identifying other factors that affected the
interviewing process. The use of some of the cognitive techniques, although not specific as to
which, were reported by 26 (65%) participants as being used in all other areas of investigative
interviewing including written witness statements, visually recorded ABE interviews, as well
39
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
as suspect interviews. When participants were asked for the total number of times they had
ever performed the role of lead interviewer in ECI’s a mean of 13.5 (SD 11.11) was identified
with a range of between 2 and 50. Table 3 shows that half of the sample had only undertaken
ten or less interviews as lead interviewer since they had been trained. The mean number of
interviews for these 20 participants was 5.85 (SD 2.78). A further 13 participants had
completed between 11 and 20 interviews since their initial training.
Only 7 (17.5%)
participants reported undertaking more than 21 interviews since they had been trained.
Table 3 showing mean number of interviews undertaken as lead interviewer
Number of interviews
Participants
M
SD
2 – 10
20
5.85
2.78
11 – 20
13
14.62
3.04
21-30
4
26.5
3.11
31-40
1
32
NaN
41-50
2
47.5
3.54
The mean period of time elapsed since participants had last undertaken an ECI as lead
interviewer was 12.6 months (SD 10.7) with 17 (42.5%) officers reporting their last interview
had been more than 12 months ago. Two participants reported not having undertaken any
interviews during the previous 3 years. Only eight participants reported having undertaken 3
or 4 interviews during the preceding 12 months. Not even one member of the sample had
undertaken more than four interviews during the previous twelve months. Not surprisingly
when participants were asked whether they had had enough opportunity to conduct interviews
to maintain a good skill and motivational level only 18 (45%) believed they had.
40
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
When participants were asked the total number of times they had performed the role of
monitor in ECI’s a mean of 11.32 (SD 10.49) interviews was identified with a range of
between 0 and 50. All participants believed the monitor’s role to be crucial to the success of a
good interview and they also all had a very good understanding of their responsibilities when
undertaking this role. Every single participant stated it was the monitor’s role to ensure that
all investigative important questions were covered.
Table 4 shows that 25 (62.5%)
participants had undertaken the role of monitor on less than ten occasions with a mean of 5.08
(SD 3.57). Only 7 (17.5%) participants had performed the role of monitor on more than
twenty-one occasions.
Table 4 showing number of ECI interviews undertaken as monitor
Interviews as monitor
Participants
M
SD
0 – 10
25
5.08
3.57
11 – 20
8
14.75
2.60
21-30
6
26.33
2.16
31-40
0
-
-
41-50
1
50
NaN
What other factors were identified as effecting the practical application of
the ECI?
This section of the questionnaire was designed to look at the pre-interview processes
including ECI preparation time and pre-interview witness assessment. It also sought to
identify any other factors which could affect the quality of the interview process before finally
examining the deployment of investigative interviewers to significant witness interviews.
41
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Only four participants reported they did not get enough time to prepare for interviews.
Overall the sample indicated they would prefer to have a mean average of 41.63 minutes (SD
33.02) in order to prepare for an interview although in reality they reported only having a
mean average time of 34.46 minutes (SD 27.30) to prepare. Nine (22.5%) participants
reported they felt under pressure to rush the actual interview procedure itself. When asked in
what way the interviewers felt under pressure to rush interviews 29 (72.5%) participants
reported they had rushed witnesses into the interview process without the witnesses having
adequate rest and 10 (25%) participants felt rushed to complete the interview as a suspect had
been detained in custody thus needing to be processed within a certain time limit.
It was suggested by 16 (40%) participants that it was the monitor’s role to carry out preinterview witness assessments. No formal pre-interview witness assessment taking place
was reported by 12 (30%) of the interviewers with only 2 (5%) reporting utilising the
‘ABE Vulnerable’ witness assessment forms for this purpose. When asked whether in their
experience the ECI had been used with appropriate witnesses 14 (35%) officers reported it
was always used with appropriate witnesses whilst 17 (42.5%) officers reported it was
frequently used with appropriate witnesses. The participants were also asked for their
opinion on what other factors they could identify as affecting the effectiveness of an ECI.
Their responses to this included: police tiredness (n=9), witness tiredness (n=1), the
witnesses willingness to engage or try the techniques (n=5), the deliberate withholding of
information (n=1), the emotional state of the witness (n=2), distance travelled to interview
suite (n=3), period of time into shift or time in the day at which the interview starts (n=2),
lack of food for the interviewer prior to the interview (n=1), commitments with family or
friends after the shift (n=4), hostile or non co-operative witnesses (n=2), officer workload
42
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
(n=1), the relationship between the two people in the interview process (n=2) and finally
the role of the witness in the incident (n=1).
When asked if they were able to undertake ECI’s when requested 30 (75%) participants stated
they could. Those who could not reported lack of resources (n=2), the period of time to
produce the statement (n=1), workload (n=1), supervisor’s refusal (n=2), annual leave (n=1)
and other operational commitments (n=3) as the reasons why interviews could not be
conducted. Thirty-five (87.5%) of the participants reported that they found conducting an
ECI mentally demanding.
How well did the participants actually know the Cognitive Interview?
In this section participants were asked about their knowledge and understanding of the ECI.
They were asked to describe the ECI model before a number of questions were asked
regarding their frequency of use and their perceived effectiveness of each of the nine phases
of the model. This section had been designed to establish a fuller understanding as to why the
techniques were not being used. Twenty-eight (70%) participants considered themselves to
be up to date with legislation and policy in relation to the interviewing of witnesses. Thirtythree participants (82.5%) believed that the ECI model was well structured and worked well
as a method for obtaining witness accounts although one person stated it was too “based on
psychology and not police user friendly”. Thirty six (90%) participants were not aware of the
difference between the CI and ECI. Overall the samples’ knowledge of the ECI model was
good as 10 (25%) of them could name all phases of the model with nine of these participants
capable of describing how each of the techniques worked without any reference to an aid
43
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
memoire. A further 16 (40%) could name 3 out of the 4 main component parts of the model
with 12 of these participants offering a good explanation as to how each of these techniques
functioned. Disappointingly 6 (15%) participants could not name any of the main component
parts of the ECI claiming they relied on a crib sheet to assist when interviewing.
Table 5 shown below clearly identifies that the participants reported that they utilise some
techniques more frequently than others and also that those which are not used as often,
namely CP and TO, are also perceived to be the least effective.
Table 5 showing means for participants reported use and perceived effectiveness of the ECI
techniques.
Technique
Frequency
Effectiveness
M
SD
M
SD
Rapport
4.85
0.36
4.58
0.59
Focused Retrieval
4.73
0.78
4.4
0.90
Report Everything
4.88
0.65
4.37
0.84
Transfer Control
4.68
0.76
4.58
0.59
MRC
4.82
0.45
4.50
0.72
Temporal Order
3.35
1.23
3.00
1.55
Change Perspectives
2.25
1.06
2.05
1.09
Compatible Q’s
4.85
0.36
4.85
0.36
Sensory Focus
4.43
0.96
4.03
1.12
Sketch Plans
4.6
0.74
4.58
0.93
44
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
The CP technique was reported to be the least frequently used and was also considered to be
the least effective. The TO technique was the second least frequently used technique and
again was not considered to be effective. Apart from the CP and TO technique all of the other
techniques were reported to be frequently used and were also reported as being effective tools
in obtaining information from witnesses.
Analysis of the mean scores shown in table 5 for the frequency of use and perceived
effectiveness of each of the various techniques using Pearson’s r (two variable parametric
testing) showed the results for both to be highly significantly positively correlated, r(10) =
0.98, p < 0.001. Thus identifying that the techniques rated as the most effective were also
most frequently reported to be used and similarly those rated as the least effective were also
reported to be the least frequently used.
Rapport building was frequently reported to be used and was also considered to be effective.
Rapport building began as soon as the interviewer met the witness according to 22 (55%)
participants and this would take place before the recording equipment was switched on. The
rapport building phase was not reported as being recorded anywhere by 14 (35%) participants
with 2 reporting they kept a formal written record of it in a witness contact log.
Focused Retrieval was also reported to be frequently used and was also considered to be
effective. It was considered effective for the following reasons: it informed witnesses of what
was expected of them preparing them for the hard work required (n=8), it kept witnesses
minds’ focused (n=10) and obtained a lot of information and detail during an account (n=4).
45
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
However participants reported some witnesses chose not to engage with this technique (n=2)
whilst other witnesses were found to be easily distracted (n=1).
Witness ability or
understanding (n=5) was also considered to affect the effectiveness of this technique.
RE was reported to be the most frequently used technique and was also considered to be
effective. It was considered effective as it caused witnesses to offer a large amount of
information (n=14), and made witnesses understand the process being clear of the amount of
information that was required (n=5). Participants also reported some witnesses were selective
in reporting information so detail could be lost (n=5) and that it depended on witness
capability and understanding as to how effective this technique was (n=8).
The transfer control instruction was frequently reported to be used and was also considered to
be effective. It was considered effective as it enables the witness to understand that they will
be doing most of the talking (n=14) and also empowers the witness obtaining a lot of
information as a result (n=15).
MRC was reported to be frequently used and was also considered effective. Participants
reported the technique produced lots of accurate information and detail during a witness
account (n=15) and also that they could actually watch the witness reliving the account during
the interview process (n=5). Several participants reported that witness capability (n=4) or
witness engagement (n=2) affected the effectiveness of this technique. One witness was
reported as unwilling to try the technique as they did not want to relive the trauma of the
original incident. Five (12.5%) participants stated they were not willing to use this technique
46
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
with rape victims and only one person reported that they had not had any success using this
method.
The TO technique was reported to be the second least frequently used and was also
considered as the second least effective. Ten officers (25%) had used it once and when it had
not worked they would not try it again. One officer reported the technique was too difficult to
perform. It was also reported that the technique had caused confusion amongst witnesses by 6
(15%) participants and was dependant on witness capability (n=5) as to whether the technique
would be successful. Three (7.5%) interviewers reported that the technique was useful to
assess if a witness was telling them the truth. One participant reported they were embarrassed
to use the technique with another reporting that the witness would think they are mad for
trying this technique. Twelve (30%) participants did however report that it had worked in
their experience and gained extra information from witnesses.
The CP technique was reported to be the least frequently used and was also considered to be
the least effective. Only 2 (5%) participants reported they had found the technique to work
whilst 8 (20%) reported the technique had not worked in their experience. When asked why
this technique was not considered to be effective 10 (25%) participants stated it involved
speculation or hypothetical assumptions by the witness and therefore produced unreliable
information. Concerns were also raised (n=3) about how useful evidence obtained using this
method would actually be at court.
The technique was also reported as confusing for
witnesses by 6 (15%) participants. Five interviewers reported they did not understand the
technique due to inadequate training.
Two participants reported they would get the
information they needed from a witness anyway without having to utilise this technique.
47
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Three of the participants (7.5%) reported they thought the concept was nonsense or they did
not like it.
Witness compatible questions were reported to be frequently used and were also considered
effective. This type of questioning was reported to be effective by 20 (50%) of the
participants as it assisted communication and ensured that the witness found the questions
simple and easy to understand. The use of this type of questioning was also considered to put
witnesses at ease allowing them to provide more information during the interview process
(n=9). Nine (22.5%) participants reported that they avoided the use of police jargon anyway
so as to not to alienate witnesses.
The sensory focus technique was reported to be frequently used and was also considered
effective. Significantly 24 (60%) participant’s reported that use of the technique gained extra
information through the triggering of other memories. Only 7 (17.5%) participants reported it
had not worked in their experience.
Sketch plans were reported to be frequently used and were also considered to be effective.
This technique was considered useful in assisting a witness to explain their account and also
for the interviewer to visualise the account or scene by 22 (55%) of participants. Nine
(22.5%) participants identified the technique as a useful further recall attempt which increased
the amount of information obtained. The actual drawing itself had been found to be useful for
either the investigation or court by 3 (7.5%) participants.
48
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
How much assessment and feedback regarding their ECI’s did the sample
receive?
In the final section of the questionnaire participants were asked a number of questions
regarding their experience of supervision and feedback in relation to their use of the ECI.
Regular interview assessment and feedback was considered as essential to improving both
performance and the quality of information obtained from witnesses by 39 (95%) participants.
In fact 35 (87.5%) participants reported they reviewed their own performance after each
interview undertaken.
Despite this only one participant reported they had had their
performance during an ECI formerly assessed by their supervisor although 9 (22.5%)
participants reported that at some point their ECI had been watched as it was taking place by
an interview advisor. Seventeen (42.5%) participants reported they had not received any
feedback regarding their interview performance whilst a further 17 (42.5%) reported they had
received positive feedback for the statement quality from either: the SIO, monitor, CPS or the
Prosecution Counsel. Thirty-four (85%) of the participants had reported that the content of
their written statements had not been compared to that of the DVD recording.
Summary
The most significant finding during this research was the highly significant positive
correlation between the participants reported frequency of use and their perceived
effectiveness of each of the cognitive techniques. The reasons behind these perceptions
which were identified by the investigative interviewers themselves are detailed in the next
chapter.
49
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Chapter 4 – Discussion
This chapter discusses the relevance of the findings of this research in relation to the real life
application of the ECI. It compares the findings of the current study to those of previous
research. It exposes several different reasons identified by the investigative interviewers
themselves as to why the TO and CP techniques are not being utilised during significant
witness interviews. In the final section of this chapter several limitations regarding this
research project are identified.
This research aimed to explore the witness interviewing practices of seventy-five percent of
the D&CC’s most experienced specialist investigative interviewers. The studies specific
focus was to explore why the cognitive techniques which are taught during initial ECI training
are not being used when applying the ECI model to real life significant witness interviews. In
order to answer this question this research explored the participant’s self-reported frequency
of use and their perceived effectiveness of each of the ECI techniques. It identified that the
TO and CP techniques were reported to be the least frequently used and were also considered
to be the least effective. It is argued that the officer’s perceived effectiveness of each of the
techniques is directly linked as to how frequently they would choose to use them. As will be
discussed later in this chapter a number of reasons were uncovered as to why the CP and TO
techniques are not being used by practitioners.
50
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
This research also examined the participants understanding of the ECI model together with
other factors which affected the practical application of the model in interviews. Overall the
majority of the findings of this study are in corroboration with those of earlier academic
research. Firstly it was discovered that the officers in this study portrayed the ECI as an
invaluable method of obtaining information from witnesses a finding which has previously
been identified in other studies (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p114). To quote one of
the participants from this study “I am a big fan of the quality of the witness evidence obtained
in this method. I have done ‘ABE Significant’ interviews with people who have already
provided a written statement and you cannot compare the amount of quantity and quality that
the ‘ABE Significant’ method provides”. This study also identified that the ECI was a
welcomed process for the witnesses themselves as the following quotes show “they go away
feeling they have given the best evidence they can. They feel that the police service were
very interested in what they had to say and we are investigating whatever they have witnessed
to the highest degree” and “young to old witnesses provide really detailed statements and
accounts making comments like ‘bloody hell I cannot believe I am remembering all this’ and
they surprise themselves. It is the benefit of putting the witness back there and reliving the
experience.” The fact that the ECI process is welcomed by the interviewees is a positive
finding given the central role that witnesses are currently afforded in the criminal justice
system.
The interviewers genuine belief in the beneficial aspects of the ECI model led a majority of
the participants (n=26) 65% to utilise some of the cognitive techniques in all other areas of
investigative interviewing. This included suspect interviews, the taking of written witness
statements and also visually recorded interviews with vulnerable people. The current research
failed to identify specifically which of the techniques were used in these other areas of
51
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
investigative interviewing so future research should examine which techniques are used and
how effective these techniques are. Despite such a positive acceptance of the ECI model as a
successful tool for interviewing these positive beliefs and confidence in the model are not
always being transferred for use in the practical environment (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff,
1999, p101).
Consistently with previous research this study confirmed that some cognitive techniques are
reported to be used more frequently than others (Memon & Higham, 1999, p192). A majority
of the participants in this study reported they always or often used most of the component
parts of the ECI including rapport building, focused retrieval, RE, transfer control, MRC,
witness compatible questioning, sensory focus and the use of sketch plans. It should however
be noted that during Gartrell’s (2010, p48) study of actual interviewer performance involving
half of the current sample he found that only the RE technique was frequently used. This
could mean that the sample have over reported their use of some of the other techniques. In
this study, only two components, namely CP and TO were frequently and significantly
reported to be omitted from use during the significant witness interviews. This finding does
provide corroboration to Gartrell’s (2011, p48) research which discovered that both of these
techniques were virtually unused and that no understanding of their mechanics was
demonstrated by his sample. Similarly Savage (2007, p50) in his research also reported that
21 officers of West Yorkshire Police also perceived the CP and TO technique to be the least
effective and that these perceptions were in correlation with the perceived frequency of use of
those techniques. Clifford and George (1996, p237) also identified that the CP and TO
techniques were seldom used in their study irrespective of the type of interviewer or type of
incident that had been witnessed.
52
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Why then is it so often found that CP and TO are the least frequently used techniques of the
ECI model? Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p66) suggest it could be that CP and TO are
the most demanding cognitive techniques to use. Whilst Kebbell, Milne and Wagstaff (1999,
p111) propose they are more difficult to communicate to witnesses and may cause confusion.
This study identified that thirty-five of the participants had reported they found conducting an
ECI mentally demanding a finding previously highlighted by Dando, Wilcock and Milne
(2008, p61). Fisher, Geiselman and Amador (1989, p726) have noted that the ECI makes
extensive demands on the interviewer and these demands include the interviewer having to
listen attentively, storing questions until an appropriate point and then being prepared to adapt
to the witnesses structuring of detail (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p56). It could be that the
mental capacity required to complete the ECI reduces the interviewer’s ability to use all of the
techniques equally. This research set out to identify the exact reason behind the lack of use of
certain techniques from the investigative interviewers themselves.
The CP technique was reported to be the least frequently used and was also considered to be
the least effective. Surprisingly only two participants reported in their experience that they
had found the technique to work whilst eight reported the technique had not worked when
they had tried it. Two of these participants also reported they had not tried to use the CP
technique again after it had been unsuccessful on the first occasion. Other reasons which
were offered as to why this technique was omitted from use or deemed as an ineffective tool
were as follows: the concept was considered to be nonsense or was disliked (n=4), it had been
found to confuse witnesses (n=6), the training had been misunderstood or was considered
inadequate (n=5), witnesses had already provided a full and detailed account using the other
techniques so application of the CP technique was not necessary (n=2) and finally it was
deemed to provide the least reliable information from witnesses through speculation or
53
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
hypothetical assumption which could lead to potential court challenges arising from non
visualised accounts being offered during testimony (n=7).
In academic literature this last reason was previously suggested as a potential reason as to
why the CP technique is not being used. As George (1991, p117) states it is not surprisingly a
little used technique as “it is not an easy concept to ask someone to put themselves in
someone else’s shoes to review an event asking them to say what they think they would have
seen, and remain confident that there will be no confabulation”.
Similarly as Memon, Bull
and Smith (1995, p64) noted officers have been concerned that this technique could be judged
as inviting fabrication. Memon and Higham (1999, p179) also identified that some police
officers who reported not using CP had also expressed a concern about the possibility of
misleading the witness with this instruction. As detailed above this study has identified that
there are in fact a number of reasons why the CP technique is not being used by practitioners
of investigative interviewing.
In this research the TO technique was reported to be the second least frequently used and was
also considered to be the second least effective of all the techniques. One quarter of the
participants (n=10) reported they had used it once and when it hadn’t worked they simply
failed to try the technique again. The participants also reported not to use this technique as it
had caused confusion amongst witnesses (n=6), was dependant on witness capability as to
whether the technique would be successful (n=5), was considered too difficult a procedure to
perform (n=1) and there was also a perception that the witness would think that interviewers
are trying to trick them or catch them lying (n=1). One participant reported they were too
embarrassed to use the technique. Another officer believed the technique was not something
54
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
that came naturally and another commented “I tried this with a witness once… and he said
‘You are having a frigging laugh aren’t you?’ Whenever I have used it the witness looks at me
as if I am mad”. Three of the participants reported that the technique was useful to assess if a
witness was telling them the truth. This is not what the TO was designed to do so it is
interesting that these officers consider this technique as a useful tool in detecting lies. Despite
such a negative perception of this technique 12 participants did report the technique had been
found to work in their experience by gaining extra and valuable information from witnesses.
Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly this study identified a highly significant positive correlation
between the participant’s reported frequency of use and their perceived effectiveness of each
of the techniques. Griffiths (2008, p171) had earlier proposed that this may be a likely cause
as to why some techniques were found not to be used. The interpretation of the results in the
current study leads one to the conclusion that the interviewers only choose to utilise the
cognitive techniques they consider to be effective in obtaining information from witnesses. It
should however be noted as highlighted above that a number of reasons have been identified
by the practitioners as to why the CP and TO techniques are considered to be ineffective.
Interestingly in respect of both CP and TO a number of officers reported that once a technique
had failed on the first occasion they would not try it again in future interviews. It was also
reported that both these techniques had been found to be confusing for witnesses. This
confusion is more than likely to have taken place due to the way in which the techniques were
explained to the witnesses as Gartrell (2010, p48) had discovered the technique instructions
were found to be poorly communicated to witnesses. The lack of use of any of the cognitive
techniques reduces both the activation of memory codes used to recall information and also
55
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
the number of retrieval attempts therefore lessoning the amount of information obtained from
the interviewee (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992, p97). Therefore the positive experience of these
techniques in gaining extra witness information by some of the interviewers is something that
should be discussed on future update training to increase the use of these techniques by all
interviewers in the future.
The majority of the previous research which has examined the real life application of the ECI
in UK police interviewing has mainly examined the interviewing practices of some of the
least experienced officers in the UK. Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2009, p679) proposed that
the CI procedure was too complex for police recruits at an early stage in their career and/or
the current training was insufficient to equip officers with the skills necessary to effectively
apply the procedure. As we have seen the participants in this study had an average length of
service of 20.68 years making them some of the most experienced officers ever to form the
sample of a research study examining investigative interviewing practices. This vast amount
of policing experience did not however lead to all the ECI techniques being applied in
interviews. The length of service is therefore an unlikely cause for the lack of the cognitive
techniques use. The participants in this study were well educated with just over a quarter
holding degree level qualifications and they also generally demonstrated a good
understanding of the ECI model and its component parts. It is therefore also unlikely that the
officer’s levels of intelligence or understanding of the model are a reason as to why some
techniques are not used.
The actual ECI experience of the sample varied hugely with officers undertaking the lead in
interviews with a range of between 2 and 50 interviews. Only eight participants reported
56
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
having undertaken 3 or 4 interviews over a twelve month period and not one participant
reported undertaking more than four interviews during the preceding twelve months. The
researcher knows from employment within the D&CC that in practice the same interviewers
are used repeatedly for two reasons i) once an officer has been identified as undertaking a
good interview the SIO, for the success of their own investigation, will want to utilise their
skills again and ii) willing volunteers who undertake interviews without hesitation are asked
to interview repeatedly in order to save time in resourcing other officers for interviews. A
concern which was identified in this study was that seventeen officers (42.5%) reported their
last interview had been more than 12 months ago. This is a finding consistent with Savage’s
(2007, p53) study of Yorkshire Police CI trained officers, half of whom were also found to
have not undertaken an interview in the preceding twelve months. This is a real issue as
unless the interviewers undertake regular interview experience they are likely to lose the
specialist skills and knowledge taught during their training (Fisher, 2010, p33). One way to
improve the number of interviews undertaken by officers could be to have a significant
witness interview co-ordinator who deploys interviewers to interviews on a rota basis.
Another factor which was identified in preventing officers gaining valuable interview
experience was that twenty-five percent of the sample reported they were unable to undertake
interviews when requested. Again in line with previous research findings by Dando, Wilcock
and Milne (2008, p62) this was identified to be related to workloads, other operational
commitments, and a general lack of resources and time preventing officers from typing up the
lengthy detailed statements. This lack of practical interview experience was highlighted by
18 (45%) participants who reported they felt they had not had enough opportunity to conduct
interviews to maintain a good skill and motivational level.
57
This is a major concern
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
considering the crucial nature of the quality of witness information in ensuring a successful
prosecution (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p63).
Several of the earlier studies identified that time, was considered to be an issue which affected
the quality of an ECI. Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p65) discovered that 74% (n=160)
of their sample usually or always felt pressured to rush interviews. Similarly Kebbell, Milne
and Wagstaff (1999, p101) interviewed 96 officers who investigated volume crime
discovering that many of them reported they did not have enough time to complete a CI and
felt the process was burdensome. In this study only 4 officers (10%) reported that they had
felt rushed in their preparation time for an interview although 29 (65%) reported they had at
some stage rushed a witness into the interview process before the witness had received an
adequate rest period. With so few participants in this study reporting feeling under pressure
when preparing for or completing interviews it seems cognitive techniques are omitted from
use for reasons other than time constraints.
As shown in the first chapter training provision has been identified as one area which is
considered of high importance to improve and maintain the quality of interviewer
performance.
The importance of repeated exposure to meaningful training has been
previously highlighted by Powell (2008, p191) with Griffiths (2008, p264) also suggesting
that in order to prevent the erosion of complex skills the provision of ongoing tuition is
essential. As we have seen with regards to the yearly update training offered by D&CC only
22 (55%) participants felt they had received regular and meaningful training. This will
inevitably have some negative effect on the interviewers’ ability to perform to a high standard
during interviews.
58
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
The attitude and motivation of interviewers (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p65) together with
prior experience (Memon & Higham, 1999, p190) has also been suggested as more important
than the amount and quality of training in determining the success of a CI. Three members of
the sample in this research reported that willing students should have been selected for the
ECI training course as opposed to forcing unwilling people to learn. One of the unwilling
candidates had reported they did not feel at all well equipped or competent to conduct an ECI
interview. It seems therefore there is no point in trying to train officers who are unwilling to
learn. Future research should consider what characteristics of an individual contribute to
them being a good interviewer and whether investigative interviewing is an innate or learned
skill.
Another key area closely associated with training is the supervision and monitoring of
interviewer performance. According to Shepherd and Milne (2006, p144) supervision is
essential to ensure consistent and quality performance in investigative interviewing. The
positive impact of feedback has also been identified by Powell (2008, p196) to be essential
when trying to maximise performance. Despite such suggestions in the academic literature
only one participant in this research reported their interviewing skills had been formerly
assessed by their supervisor making it very clear only limited interview assessment takes
place within D&CC. This is a worrying finding considering 95% (n=39) of the participants
considered regular assessment and constructive feedback is essential in improving both
interviewer performance and also the quality of information obtained from witnesses. Several
of the participants did however point out that with the police facing huge budget cuts and a
significant drop in police officer numbers that in reality there would be no time to assess
interview performance.
59
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Another problem is that the supervisors have, little or more often no ECI training, so they are
not in a position to assess the quality of interviewer performance. As Gartrell (2011, p51)
pointed out the necessity for review and assessment in the workplace is hindered by the
D&CC’s lack of Tier 5 Interview Advisors who are Tier 3 ECI trained. The training of police
supervisors was identified as an important issue over a decade ago by Memon, Bull and Smith
(1995, p65) yet despite this no national ECI assessment training is yet delivered to
supervisors.
The lack of regular training, formal assessment and the monitoring of
interviewer performance could be one of the contributing factors which have allowed the use
of TO and CP to slip from the ECI model within the D&CC. Further research should explore
the importance of both training and supervision in ensuring an improved quality of
interviewing performance in the future.
Limitations of this research
The first area of caution to consider when interpreting the results of this study relates to the
sample selection. The sample for this research consisted only of D&CC officers and is
therefore not representative of investigative interviewing across the UK.
To allow
generalizations future research should utilise a broader sample of officers from the 43
independent police forces in England and Wales.
This study also only examined the
interviewing practices of the officers who held one form of investigative interview training
namely ‘ABE Significant’. This was to the neglect of the other officers within D&CC who
had been trained in other areas of investigative interviewing such as ‘ABE Vulnerable’.
60
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Another criticism of this research design which involved the gathering of self reported
information was that the reliability of the data obtained could be questionable. Some of the
participants for example may have over reported their frequency of use of the cognitive
techniques. This seems likely to have occurred as Gartrell (2010, p4) reported he found a
poor level of use of many of the cognitive techniques during his assessment of the actual
interview performance of half the sample in the current study.
This was the first time the researcher had undertaken primary research involving the gathering
of raw data through semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire design could have been
improved in order to ease the data analysis process by coding the answers prior to the data
gathering phase. This would have assisted with the later analysis of the data albeit with the
negative effect of restricting the participant’s responses. During the analysis of the raw data
in this research it was discovered that a couple of the questions were found to be duplicated
allowing participants to give differing answers to what effectively was the same question
worded in a different manner. However this happened to have a positive effect as the data
obtained from these questions remained consistent across the answers to both questions
making the findings more robust in nature.
As detailed above and despite the limitations that have been identified the researcher achieved
the objective of answering the question ‘Why don't experienced specialist investigative police
interviewers utilise cognitive techniques during significant witness interviews? The
conclusion and recommendations resulting from this research are summarised in the next
chapter.
61
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This research identified that there was a highly significant positive correlation between the
reported frequency of use and perceived effectiveness of each of the cognitive techniques. In
line with the previous research findings the CP and TO techniques were reported to be the
least frequently used during the real life application of the ECI model to significant witness
interviews. This lack of use was directly attributable to the D&CC officer’s perceptions that
these techniques were not effective in obtaining information from witnesses. As discussed in
the last chapter a number of reasons were discovered as to why these techniques were not
used or considered to be effective. These reasons included a failure of these techniques
during an earlier interview leading to their neglect of use in following interviews. The CP
technique was also reported to be disliked, poorly trained and concerns were also raised about
obtaining hypothetical information from witnesses which, could be viewed as problematic by
the court. The TO technique was reported to be too difficult to perform and also dependant
on witness capability or intelligence. Both the CP and TO techniques were reported not to be
used as they had been found to confuse witnesses during previous interviews. Future research
needs to explore whether, how and why these techniques confuse witnesses. Despite such
negativity with regards to these techniques some participants did report positive experience of
their use in obtaining extra detail and information during interviews. It seems clear therefore
that a new and modified training package is required which promotes the use of the TO and
CP technique in order to improve the future quality and quantity of witness evidence.
62
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Recommendations
The findings of this research suggest that if adopted the following recommendations would
improve the quality of investigative interviewing in the future:
i) Ensure appropriate candidates are selected for future ‘ABE Significant’ training based
on a desire by the applicant to undertake the training coupled with an appropriate
length of basic investigative interviewing experience.
ii) A review of the theoretical content of the initial training course should take place with
appropriate tailoring therein to ensure that the TO and CP mnemonics are taught in
a manner they can be understood by the interviewing practitioners. The training
should incorporate examples of how to correctly explain these techniques to
witnesses.
iii) The refresher training needs to be delivered more frequently and consistently with
compulsory attendance in order for officers to maintain the ‘ABE Significant’ skill
title.
iv) A managerial service level agreement should be made allowing those with the skill to
be freed from other operational commitments to allow them to undertake ‘ABE
Significant’ witness interviews when requested to do so.
v) The proper co-ordination of significant witness interviews should take place to ensure
all those trained with the skill are more regularly putting their expertise to use.
vi) Following accreditation officer’s interviews should be subject to ongoing and intrusive
supervisory workplace assessment with feedback to ensure an improved quality of
obtaining witness evidence.
vii) Those responsible for the supervision and review of interviewer performance should
receive appropriate training to perform this role.
63
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
The findings of this research have been made available nationally to other police forces
through inclusion on a National Police Improvement Agency database and also through the
attendance of the researcher on police quarterly regional investigative interview meetings. It
is hoped that the findings of this study will contribute to an improved quality of witness
interviewing in the future.
APPENDIX ‘A’ – QUESTIONNAIRE
64
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Institute of Criminal Justice Studies
COGNITIVE INTERVIEWING QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Participant,
The purpose of my study is to ascertain your views regarding your specialist role as a ‘witness
testimony’ trained officer within the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. I will be asking you
questions about your opinions regarding a range of issues associated with your unique role and also
your understanding of the various phases of the cognitive interview.




All of your answers will be anonymous
All the information that you provide me will be treated in the strictest confidence and will be
used solely for the purpose of research.
I am looking for general trends and will not be analysing or evaluating individuals’ responses
Your rights in research are explained in the handout below
65
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Institute of Criminal Justice Studies
Your Rights in Research
1. You will remain anonymous throughout this study and no identifying
data will be kept on record.
2. You have the right to withdraw at any time.
3. If you wish you are welcome to discuss the research at any stage, and see
the results and findings once the research is complete.
4. At completion and when the research findings are published you are
welcome to express your feelings about the research, the researcher and
your participation.
5. If you so wish, you can withdraw your data retrospectively and any
consent that you have given. You may also request that any data,
recordings or notes, be destroyed.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your time and
participation.
THE CONTENTS OF THIS FORM ARE CONFIDENTIAL. INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING THE RESPONDANT WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
66
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Demographic Information Date:
1.
What is your current role?
2.
Period of time spent in current role?
3.
How long have you worked for the police?
4.
What is you gender?
5.
What is your ethnicity?
6.
How old are you?
7.
Years
What is the highest educational achievement you hold?
8.
Do you possess any other similar skills or qualifications?
Your Cognitive Interview Training
9.
When did you receive your training in cognitive interview techniques?
10.
How did you rate the training course?
Excellent
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Poor
11.
How well equipped and competent do you feel to conduct cognitive interviews after the
training?
Fully 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Not at all
12.
Please explain you answer.
13.
Did you understand all parts of the training?
14.
What changes would you make to the cognitive training?
15.
What examples provided during the cognitive interview course do you use?
16.
Why do you use that example?
17.
Would you welcome more examples?
18.
Was the training sufficient in length?
67
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
19.
Do you receive regular and meaningful update training?
20.
What format does this take?
21.
What effect do you feel this has on the quality of your use of the cognitive interview?
Your Experiences as a cognitive interviewer
22.
How many cognitive interviews have you performed the role of lead interviewer?
23.
How many of these have been within the last year?
24.
When did you last perform that role?
25.
How many cognitive interviews have you performed the role of monitor?
26.
What is the role of the monitor?
27.
Have you normally been able to conduct cognitive interviews when requested?
Yes No
If you answered no, why were you unable to undertake the cognitive interview?
28.
29.
30.
Do you consider that you have had the opportunity to conduct enough cognitive
interviews to maintain your skill and motivation levels?
Yes No
What assessment of witnesses do you make pre interview?
31.
In your experience is the cognitive interview used with appropriate witnesses?
32.
Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never
Do you ever consider that it is not appropriate to try a cognitive technique with a
witness? If so why
33.
How is this documented?
34.
How much time would you like to prepare for a cognitive interview?
35.
In reality how much time do you get to prepare?
36.
Do you feel under pressure to rush interviews?
37.
In what way?
38.
What other factors affect you conduct during the CI?
68
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
39.
How could an improvement be made to the quality of interviewers interviewing skills?
40.
What do you believe to be the most significant evidential area of an investigation?
Forensic Evidence Witness Evidence Suspect Admissions CCTV Other
How have your cognitive interview skills affected other investigative interviews you
conduct (Section 9 Witness statements and Suspect interviews)?
41.
42.
Do you find conducting the cognitive interview mentally demanding?
43.
If so Why?
Your Current Cognitive Interview Knowledge
44.
What is the main difference between the cognitive interview and the conversation
management interview?
45.
Name the four primary techniques that are used in cognitive interviewing.
46.
Describe your understanding of each of these.
47.
What is the difference between the cognitive interview and the enhanced cognitive
interview?
48.
Do you consider that you are up to date with current legislation and policy in relation to
the interviewing of witnesses?
49.
Considering each of the phases of the cognitive interview in turn, how frequently have
you used them and to what affect?
Establishing Rapport with the witness.
50.
How frequently used?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
51.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
When and where do you establish rapport?
Is this recorded?
Focused Retrieval / Instructing the witness to concentrate hard.
How frequently do you use this instruction?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
Why?
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
69
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
52.
Report Everything
How frequently do you use this instruction?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
53.
Transfer of control of the interview.
How frequently do you use this instruction?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
54.
Mental Reinstatement of Context.
How frequently do you use this instruction?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
55.
Witness Compatible Questioning
How frequently do you use this?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
How important do you consider non verbal communication to be?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
70
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
56.
Changing the Temporal Order.
How frequently do you use this?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
57.
Sensory Focus
How frequently do you use this?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
58.
Change Perspectives.
How frequently do you use this?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
59.
Use of Sketch plans.
How frequently do you use this?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
How effective do you feel this technique is?
Very 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Why?
60.
How do you ensure all investigative important questions are covered during the
interview?
61.
How frequently do you summarise what has been said during an interview?
Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used
Why is the summary included within the model?
62.
71
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
63.
Following giving the witness a summary of their account do you ask for clarification and
amendments?
64.
Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never
Do you offer your contact details?
65.
Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never
Do you explain future processes to witnesses?
66.
Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never
How well do you think the component parts of the cognitive interview work together
within the nine phases of the interview?
67.
Which technique do you use most often and why?
69.
Which technique would you not use and why?
70.
Are there any other methods you use to assist witnesses with memory recall?
Supervision and Feedback
71.
72.
Has a PIP level 3 interview advisor ever monitored your performance whilst conducting a
cognitive interview?
Yes No
Have any of your interviews ever been assessed?
73.
Have you ever received any feedback about cognitive interviews that you have
conducted?
74.
Do you ever review your own performance?
Yes No
75.
Has your supervisor ever compared the content of your statement with the DVD or video
recording?
76.
What effect do you feel regular interview assessment and constructive feedback would
have on the quality of your use of the CI?
77.
Did you form part of Peter Gartrell’s academic study?
72
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
APPENDIX B – SPREADSHEET’S
Please find on the attached disc a copy of the Excel and SPSS spreadsheets used to store the
raw data from this research project.
73
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akehurst, L., Milne, R., & Kohnken, G. (2003). The effects of children’s age and delay on
recall in a cognitive or structured interview. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 9,
97-107.
Allison, B., O’Sullivan, T., Owen, A., Rice, J., Rothwell., & Saunders, C. (1996). Research
skills for students. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Bell, J. (2007). Doing your Research Project. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Birge, A. (1994). The Cognitive Interview Technique: An Effective Investigative Tool. Law
and Order, Vol 42, 39-42.
Boon, J. & Noon, E. (1994). Changing Perspectives in Cognitive Interviewing. Psychology
Crime and Law, Vol 1, 59-69.
British Society of Criminology (2011), Code of Ethics for Researchers in the Field of
Criminology. Retrieved May 13, 2011 from
http://www.britsoccrim.org/codeofethics.htm
Brock, P., Fisher, R., & Cutler, B. (1999). Examining the Cognitive Interview in a Double
-Test Paradigm. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 5, 29-45.
Brown, R. & McNeill, D. (1966). The ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomenon. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Behaviour, 5, 325-337.
Canter, D. & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative Psychology. West Sussex: Wiley.
74
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Centofanti, A. & Reece, J. (2006). The Cognitive Interview and its Effect on Misleading
Postevent Information. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 12(6), 669-683.
Clarke, C. & Milne, R. (2001). National Evaluation of the PEACE interview Course. Police
Research Award Scheme. Home Office: London.
Clifford, B. & George, R. (1996). A Field Evaluation of Training in Three Methods of
Witness/Victim Investigative Interviewing. Psychology, Crime & Law 2, 231-248.
Clifford, B. & Gwyer, P. (1999). The effects of the cognitive interview and other methods of
context reinstatement on identification. Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol 5, 61-80.
Conway, M. A. & Holmes, E. A. (2008). Guidelines on Memory
and the Law: Recommendations from the Scientific Study of Human Memory.
Leicester: The British Psychological Society.
Dando, C. J. & Milne, R. (2009). Cognitive Interviewing. In Kocsis, R. (2009). Applied
Criminal Psychology: A guide for forensic Behavioural Sciences. Springfield: Charles
C Thomas.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2008). The cognitive interview: Inexperienced police
officers’ perceptions of their witness/victim interviewing practices. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 13. 59-70.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009). The Cognitive Interview: Novice Police
Officers’ witness/victim interviewing practices. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol
15(8), 679-696.
75
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009). The Cognitive Interview: The Efficacy of a
Modified Mental Reinstatement of Context Procedure for Frontline Police
Investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol 23, 138-147.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. & Henry, L. (2009). A Modified Cognitive Interview
Procedure for Frontline Investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol 23,
698-716.
Davis, M., Mcmahon, M., & Greenwood, K. (2004). The Role of Visual Imagery in the
Enhanced Cognitive Interview: Guided Questioning Techniques and Individual
Differences. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Vol 1,
33-51.
Fisher, R. (2010). Interviewing Cooperative Witnesses. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, Vol 15, 25-38.
Fisher, R., Geiselman, R. & Amador, M. (1989). Field Test of the Cognitive Interview:
Enhancing the Recollection of Actual Victims and Witnesses of Crime. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol 74, 722-727.
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Raymond, D. S. (1987). Critical Analysis of Police
Interview Techniques. Journal of Police Science and Administration.
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Raymond, D. S., Jurkevich, L. M., & Warhaftig, M. L.
(1987). Enhancing Enhanced Eyewitness Memory: Refining the Cognitive Interview.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol 15, 291-297.
76
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Fyfe, N., & Smith, K. (2007). Victims and Witnesses in Criminal Investigations. In
Newburn, T., Williamson, T., & Wright, A. (Ed) Handbook of Criminal Investigation.
Cullompton: Willan Publsihing
Gartrell, P. (2010). Does Tier 3 Significant Witness Interview Training Work? (Unpublished
undergraduate dissertation). University of Portsmouth.
Gartrell, P. (2011). Significant Changes. The Investigator, Vol 2, 38-39.
Gartrell, P. (2011). The Cognitive Interview in the Real World. The Journal of Homicide
and Major Incident Investigation, Volume 7, Issue 2, November 2011.
Geiselman, R. E. & Fisher, R. P. (1986). Interviewing Victims and Witnesses of Crime.
Police, March 1986.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Cohen, G., Holland, H., & Surtes, L. (1986). Eyewitness
Responses to Leading and Misleading Questions Under the Cognitive Interview.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol 14, 31-39.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L., Sullivan, S. J., Avetissian, I. V., &
Prosk, A. L. (1984). Enhancement of Eyewitness Memory: An Empirical Evaluation
of the Cognitive Interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol 12,
74-80.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Holland, H., & Surtes, L. (1986). Eyewitness Responses to
Leading and Misleading Questions Under the Cognitive Interview. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, Vol 14, 31-39.
77
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
George, R. (1991). A Field and Experimental Evaluation of Three Methods of Interviewing
Witnesses/Victims of Crime. Phd Thesis. Polytechnic of East London.
Granhag, P. A., Jonsson, A & Allwood, C. M. (2004). The Cognitive Interview and its Effect
on Witnesses’ Confidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol 10(1), 37-52.
Griffiths, A. (2008). An examination into the efficacy of police advanced investigative
interview training? (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Portsmouth.
Griffiths, A. & Milne, R. (2005). Will it all end in tiers? Police Interviews with Suspects in
Britain. In T. Williamson. (Ed), Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research,
Regulation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Griffiths, A. & Milne, R. (2009). The application of cognitive interview techniques as part
of an investigation. Invited chapter to appear in Ireland, A, C. and Fisher, M. (2009).
Consulting and advising in forensic practice: Empirical and practical guidelines.
Chichester: Wiley.
Gross, R. (2009). Psychology The Science of Mind And Behaviour. Dubai: Hodder Arnold.
Gudjonsson, G. (2007). Investigative Interviewing. In Newburn, T., Williamson, T., &
Wright, A. (Ed) Handbook of Criminal Investigation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Hague, P. (1993). Questionnaire Design. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Hammond, L., Wagstaff, G., & Cole, J. (2006). Facilitating Eyewitness Memory in Adults
and Children with Context Reinstatement and Focused Medication. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offending Profiling, Vol 3, 117-130.
78
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Hibberd, M. & Bennett, M. (1990). Questionnaire and Interview Surveys. London: The
Police Foundation.
Home Office. (2011). Acheiving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on
Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and using Special Measures. London: Home
Office.
Kapardis, A. (2003). Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R. & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). The Cognitive Interview: A Survey of its
Forensic Effectiveness. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 5, 101-114.
Kebbell, M. R., Wagstaff, G. F., & Preece, D. (1998). The Effect of Belief that Testimony
was Elicited with a Cognitive Interview on Jurors Judgements of Guilt. Psychology,
Crime and Law, Vol 4, 17-25.
Kohnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A. & Bull, R. (1999). The Cognitive Interview: A Meta
-Analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol 5, 3-27.
Lawrence Neuman, W. (2011). Social Research Methods. Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Lowe, M. (2007). Beginning Research. A guide for foundation degree students. Padstow:
Routledge.
Memon, A. (1999). Interviewing Witnesses: The Cognitive Interview. In Memon, A. & Bull,
R. (1999). Handbook of the Psychology of Interviewing. Chichester: Wiley.
79
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Memon, A. & Bull, R. (1991). The Cognitive Interview: its Origins, Empirical Support,
Evaluation and Practical Implications. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, Vol 1, 291-307.
Memon, A., Bull. R., & Smith, M. (1995). Improving the Quality of the Police Interview:
Can Training in the use of Cognitive Techniques Help? Policing and Society, Vol 5,
53-68.
Memon, A. & Higham, P. (1999). A review of the cognitive interview. Psychology, Crime
and Law, Vol 5, 177-196.
Memon, A., Meissner, C., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic
review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy and
Law, Vol 6, 340-372.
Milne, R. (1997). Analysis and Application of the Cognitive Interview Volume 2. Ph D
Thesis.
Milne, R. (2004). The Enhanced Cognitive Interview. Unpublished training guide:
University of Portsmouth.
Milne, R. & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. West
Sussex: Wiley.
Milne, R. & Bull, R. (2002). Back to Basics: A Componential Analysis of the Original
Cognitive Interview Mnemonics with Three Age Groups. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, Vol 16, 743-753.
80
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Milne, R. & Bull, R. (2003). Does the Cognitive Interview Help Children to Resist the
Effects of Suggestive Questioning? Legal and Criminological Psychology. Vol 8,
21-38.
National Centre of Policing Excellence. (2005). Practical Advice on Core Investigative
Doctrine. Cambridgeshire: ACPO Centrex.
National Centre of Policing Excellence. (2006). Murder Investigation Manual.
Bedfordshire: ACPO Centrex.
National Centre of Policing Excellence. (2006a). Implementation Support Plan for the
Professionalising Investigation Programme (PIP). Bedfordshire: ACPO Centrex.
Perri, 6. & Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of Methodology. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Powell, M. (2008). Designing Effective Training Programs for Investigative Interviews of
Children. Current issues in Criminal Justice, Vol 20, 189-208.
Savage, P. (2007). What is the current state of witness interviewing within West Yorkshire
Police? (Unpublished undergraduate Dissertation). University of Portsmouth.
Shepherd, E. (1991). Ethical Interviewing. Policing, Vol 7(1), 42-60.
Shepherd, E. & Milne, R. (2006). ‘Have you told management about this?: Bringing
Witness Interviewing into the twenty-first Century. In Heaton-Armstrong, A.,
Shepher, E., Gudjonsson, G., & Wolchover, D. (2006). Witness Testimony.
Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives. Oxford: University Press.
81
STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01
Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Stinson, M., Tedeschini, J., & House, J. (2010). Reforming
Investigative Interviewing in Canada. Canadian Journal Of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, Vol 52(2), 203-217.
Snook, B., & Keating, K. (2011). A Field Study of Adult Witness Interviewing Practices in a
Canadian Police Organisation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol 16,
160-172.
Tulving, E. & Thompson, D. (1973). Encoding Specificity and Retrieval Processes in
Episodic Memory. Psychological Review, Vol 80, 352-373.
Walsh, D. & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing
practices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology. Vol 13, 3957.
Willis, G. (2005). Cognitive Interviewing. A tool for Improving Questionnaire Design.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Wolchover, D. & Heaton-Armstrong, A. (1997, June 6). Tape recording witness
statements. New Law Journal, 855-857.
Wright, A., & Alison, L. (2004). Questioning Sequences in Canadian Police Interviews:
Constructing and Confirming the Course of Events? Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol
10(2), 137-154.
Wright, A. & Holliday, R. (2005). Police perceptions of older eyewitnesses. Legal &
Criminological Psychology, 10, 211-223.
82