Purpose: By reversing the order of the interview stages 'cued invitations' and 'summary', this two-part study aimed to improve investigative interviews of children in cases of (suspected) sexual...Show morePurpose: By reversing the order of the interview stages 'cued invitations' and 'summary', this two-part study aimed to improve investigative interviews of children in cases of (suspected) sexual child abuse. The central thesis is that the adjusted sequence would reduce the child's resistance and lead to more accurate and detailed statements. In part one, forensic interviewers were asked about their methods and expectations regarding the timing of the cued invitations. Part two was an experiment conducted to compare the current Dutch interview method, the scenario model, with the proposed method. Methods: Part one was done through a thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 8 forensic interviewers. In part two, 31 children (7-11 years) were interviewed regarding a simulated online incident using either the scenario model, or the proposed method. Results: Forensic interviewers reported encountering resistance from children during general invitations. They did not expect this to change when switching from the scenario model to the proposed method in terms of resistance and accuracy, but expected that children would provide more extensive statements in the scenario model. According to them, the summary in the scenario model is the moment valuable additions are made and errors corrected. They view the summary as a moment of calm and a foundation for further questioning. In part two, no significant differences were observed between the scenario model and the proposed method regarding resistance, accuracy, and comprehensiveness. Conclusions: This research provided valuable insights into the complexity of child investigative interviews and prompted further investigation. At the time, there appeared to be no benefit in modifying the scenario model. Forensic interviewers favored the established scenario model, while the experimental results showed insufficient significant differences in the efficacy of the interview methods to recommend a change.Show less
