Improving EWT - Cognitive Interview - EVAL

Question 1

Key Research - Kohnken et al (1999)

Answer 1

meta analysis - 53 studies
avg. 34% increase in accuracy when CI used
81% using ECI
- compared to regular interviews

Question 2

EVAL = strengths summary

Answer 2

• Geiselman
• Bekerian and Dennett (1993)
• Anderson and Pichert (1973)

Question 3

strength = Geiselman

Answer 3

participants shown simulated crime videos
used 3 interview methods
- regular
- CI
- Hypnosis
= CI best

Question 4

Strength = Bekerian and Dennett (1993)

Answer 4

23 studies on CI reviewed
CI best method in all of them
High reliability

Question 5

Strength = Anderson and Pichert (1973)

Answer 5

different perspective study
participants read story
- 2 school boys truanting (skipping)
- looked at perspectives of burglar or house buyer
all different perspectives revealed different information

Question 6

Eval = Limitations summary

Answer 6

• low reliability - methods vary between studies
• Milne and Bull (2002)
• CI takes place a while post crime - most effective closer to the crime
• time consuming criminal setting- corners cut (Kebbell and Wagstaff)
• provision of cues
• Mello and Fisher (1996)

Question 7

Limitation = Milne and Bull (2002)

Answer 7

when pit against a control using regular interview - little to no difference using CI principles individually
- only difference = report / context
- not collectively useful just individual principles

Question 8

Limitation = Mello and Fisher (1996)

Answer 8

watch simulated crime
CI worked better for older men than younger men
individual characteristics may influence CI effectiveness
- not universally effective