Applying Hierarchy of Expert Performance (HEP) to Investigative Interview Evaluation: Strengths, Challenges and Future Directions

Overview

Journal Psychiatr Psychol Law

Date 2021 Oct 29

PMID 34712095

Citations 1

Authors

Ching-Yu Huang

Ray Bull

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to systematically examine the research literature on the decision of expert interviewers within the theoretical framework of the Hierarchy of Expert Performance (HEP). After providing an overview of the HEP framework, existing research in the investigative interviewing at each of the eight levels of the HEP framework is reviewed. The results identify areas of strength in (Level 2) and of weakness in (Level 6). Biases in investigative interview experts' decision making is also revealed at (Level 8). Moreover, no published data are available in at the level of (Level 1) or (Level 5), (Level 3 and 4) and (Level 7). The findings highlight areas where future research and practical endeavour are much needed for the investigative interview.

Citing Articles

Linear Sequential Unmasking- (LSU-): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias.

Dror I, Kukucka J Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2021; 3:100161.

PMID: 34466797 PMC: 8385162. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161.

References

Melkman E, Hershkowitz I, Zur R . Credibility assessment in child sexual abuse investigations: A descriptive analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2017; 67:76-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.027. View

Horner T, Guyer M, Kalter N . The biases of child sexual abuse experts: believing is seeing. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1993; 21(3):281-92. View

Roma P, San Martini P, Sabatello U, Tatarelli R, Ferracuti S . Validity of criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) at trial in free-narrative interviews. Child Abuse Negl. 2011; 35(8):613-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.04.004. View

Welle I, Berclaz M, Lacasa M, Niveau G . A call to improve the validity of criterion-based content analysis (CBCA): Results from a field-based study including 60 children's statements of sexual abuse. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016; 43:111-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.jflm.2016.08.001. View

Ceci S, Huffman M . How suggestible are preschool children? Cognitive and social factors. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997; 36(7):948-58. DOI: 10.1097/00004583-199707000-00017. View

Dror I, Cole S . The vision in "blind" justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010; 17(2):161-7. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.161. View

Horner T, Guyer M, Kalter N . Clinical expertise and the assessment of child sexual abuse. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993; 32(5):925-31; discussion 931-3. DOI: 10.1097/00004583-199309000-00006. View

Dror I, Thompson W, Meissner C, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M . Letter to the Editor- Context Management Toolbox: A Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making. J Forensic Sci. 2015; 60(4):1111-2. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12805. View

Zajac R, Garry M, London K, Goodyear-Smith F, Hayne H . Misconceptions about childhood sexual abuse and child witnesses: Implications for psychological experts in the courtroom. Memory. 2013; 21(5):608-617. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2013.778287. View

10.

Peled M, Iarocci G, Connolly D . Eyewitness testimony and perceived credibility of youth with mild intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2004; 48(Pt 7):699-703. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2003.00559.x. View

11.

Bond Jr C, DePaulo B . Accuracy of deception judgments. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006; 10(3):214-34. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2. View

12.

Lamb M, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Esplin P, Horowitz D . A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: a review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse Negl. 2007; 31(11-12):1201-31. PMC: 2180422. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021. View

13.

Gagnon K, Cyr M . Sexual abuse and preschoolers: Forensic details in regard of question types. Child Abuse Negl. 2017; 67:109-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.022. View

14.

Everson M, Sandoval J . Forensic child sexual abuse evaluations: assessing subjectivity and bias in professional judgements. Child Abuse Negl. 2011; 35(4):287-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.001. View

15.

Leach A, Talwar V, Lee K, Bala N, Lindsay R . "Intuitive" lie detection of children's deception by law enforcement officials and university students. Law Hum Behav. 2005; 28(6):661-85. PMC: 2632954. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-004-0793-0. View

16.

Crossman A, Lewis M . Adults' ability to detect children's lying. Behav Sci Law. 2006; 24(5):703-15. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.731. View

17.

Vrij A, Granhag P, Porter S . Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2015; 11(3):89-121. DOI: 10.1177/1529100610390861. View

18.

Mann S, Vrij A, Bull R . Detecting true lies: police officers' ability to detect suspects' lies. J Appl Psychol. 2004; 89(1):137-49. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.137. View

19.

Ulery B, Hicklin R, Buscaglia J, Roberts M . Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS One. 2012; 7(3):e32800. PMC: 3299696. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032800. View

20.

Amado B, Arce R, Farina F, Vilarino M . Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2018; 16(2):201-210. PMC: 6225082. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002. View