Investigative Interviewers’ Peer Feedback On a Child Forensic Interview

Abstract Ongoing feedback following training helps support child forensic interviewers’ adherence to best practice techniques in the field. Given the challenges in employing experts to deliver this feedback, having trained interviewers provide peer feedback may be more feasible. Across two studies, we examined the accuracy and quality of trained child interviewers’ peer reviews. Two samples of police officers recently trained in child forensic interviewing were recruited (Study 1 n = 60; Study 2 n = 63). Participants reviewed a transcript of a fictional child interview. They rated how well the interviewer adhered to best practice in each phase of the interview, gave comments to justify each rating, and provided two paragraphs of feedback for the interviewer. Compared to experts’ ratings, participants rated the interviewer as more closely adhering to best practice in all interview phases (except the episodic memory training phase in Study 2) and identified significantly fewer elements of best practice in their explanations and feedback paragraphs. Overall, participants identified more negative than positive elements of the interviewer’s practice, but participants given instructions on how to write quality feedback provided more positive comments and used a ‘feedback sandwich’ structure. Participants in Study 2 (who had less training in child interviewing) found the task more difficult than those in Study 1. These studies demonstrate that recently trained child interviewers provided somewhat useful peer feedback, but it was more limited—and more positive—than experts’ feedback. Being informed about providing feedback increased the quality of participants’ feedback, although the improvement was small.