Interview techniques

The cognitive interview (CI) is the gold standard, the recommended approach for gathering the most accurate information from victims. Empirical research has demonstrated that it dramatically improves the accuracy of details recalled, with only a small increase in incorrect detail (Memon et al., 2010); however, it is important to note that research on the use of CI and traumatic events is still sparse.

The cognitive interview can be used under a range of circumstances. A study by Dodier et al. (2021) looked at the relevance of the CI technique for recall in highway collisions. Fifty-six individuals involved in a collision were interviewed with the CI technique or a control interview technique. The study confirmed the subjects who received the cognitive interview recalled more detail than the subjects who were administered the control interview. A study by Crossland and colleagues (2020) comparing individuals in various states of intoxication found the cognitive interview improved recall accuracy and completeness in all three drinking conditions. A study by Wyman (2019) sought to assess methods to improve the credibility of child eyewitness. Wyman examined the efficacy of the cognitive interview with typical and atypical child populations (i.e., children with and without intellectual disabilities). Wyman found that children who were administered the cognitive interview provided more words, transgression details, and disclosures than children who were administered the standard interview. A recent study by Goldfarb et al. (2022), which examined the cognitive interview on adults (N = 115) who experienced childhood maltreatment, demonstrated that the CI improved memory reports.

The CI consists of four main memory retrieval and communication techniques. The first is context reinstatement where the victim is asked to reconstruct the physical and personal context at the time of the events. The second is to encourage the victim to report everything they can remember, regardless of whether their memory is complete. Third, different retrieval cues are used to access different aspects of the incident; for example, they may be asked to recall the event from their perspective or a perspective of someone else. For the fourth technique, victims are asked to recall the incident in different temporal orders: from the beginning, from the end working back, or from the middle (Memon et al., 2010).

An alternative interview technique that is gaining attention is known as the forensic experiential trauma interview (FETI). The FETI strategies were developed while keeping neurobiology and cognitive functioning of assault victims in mind, and agencies must pay a licensing fee to use it.

The purpose of the FETI is to gather more accurate information in a less stressful environment, and the suggested protocol begins with acknowledging the victim’s traumatic experience. Investigators are also advised to examine trauma victimization by asking questions like “Is there anything you can’t forget?” or “What was the most difficult experience for you?” (Preston, 2016). However, the FETI is not universally endorsed as an interview protocol due to a lack of empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness,Footnote 5 its unproven status in a court of law, and its proprietary nature. A U.S. Air Force report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee involving an exhaustive research and consultation with multiple reputable subject matter experts overwhelmingly recommended the cognitive interview over the FETI. The report confirmed the cognitive interview is an empirically validated interview method supported by scientific research (Ray, 2015).