认知面试

N. Gordon, William L. Fleisher
{"title":"认知面试","authors":"N. Gordon, William L. Fleisher","doi":"10.4135/9781412983655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Cognitive Interview (CI) is a well-established protocol for interviewing witnesses. The current article presents a study space analysis of laboratory studies of the CI together with an empirical meta-analysis summarizing the past 25 years of research. The study space comprises 57 published articles (65 experiments) on the CI, providing an assessment of the boundary conditions underlying the analysis and application of this interview protocol. The current meta-analysis includes 46 pub- lished articles, including 20 articles published since the last meta-analysis conducted a decade earlier (Ko¨hnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull, 1999). Reassuringly for practitioners, the findings of the original meta-analysis were replicated with a large and significant increase in correct details and a small increase in errors. In addition we found that there were no differences in the rate at which details are confabulated. Importantly, the effect sizes were unaffected by the inclusion of recent studies using modified versions of the CI. The CI appeared to benefit older adult witnesses even more than younger adults. We highlight trends and gaps in research and discuss how our findings can inform policy and training decisions.","PeriodicalId":175414,"journal":{"name":"Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"574","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Interviewing\",\"authors\":\"N. Gordon, William L. Fleisher\",\"doi\":\"10.4135/9781412983655\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Cognitive Interview (CI) is a well-established protocol for interviewing witnesses. The current article presents a study space analysis of laboratory studies of the CI together with an empirical meta-analysis summarizing the past 25 years of research. The study space comprises 57 published articles (65 experiments) on the CI, providing an assessment of the boundary conditions underlying the analysis and application of this interview protocol. The current meta-analysis includes 46 pub- lished articles, including 20 articles published since the last meta-analysis conducted a decade earlier (Ko¨hnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull, 1999). Reassuringly for practitioners, the findings of the original meta-analysis were replicated with a large and significant increase in correct details and a small increase in errors. In addition we found that there were no differences in the rate at which details are confabulated. Importantly, the effect sizes were unaffected by the inclusion of recent studies using modified versions of the CI. The CI appeared to benefit older adult witnesses even more than younger adults. We highlight trends and gaps in research and discuss how our findings can inform policy and training decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":175414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"574\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983655\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 574

摘要

认知访谈(CI)是一种完善的证人访谈协议。本文对CI的实验室研究进行了研究空间分析,并对过去25年的研究进行了实证荟萃分析。研究空间包括57篇关于CI的已发表文章(65个实验),提供了对分析和应用本访谈协议的边界条件的评估。当前的荟萃分析包括46篇已发表的文章,其中包括自10年前进行的上一次荟萃分析以来发表的20篇文章(Ko¨hnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull, 1999)。让从业人员放心的是,原始荟萃分析的发现被重复了,正确细节的大量显著增加,错误的少量增加。此外,我们发现在虚构细节的比率上没有差别。重要的是,效应量不受纳入使用改良版本CI的最新研究的影响。老年证人似乎比年轻人更容易受益。我们强调了研究的趋势和差距,并讨论了我们的发现如何为政策和培训决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cognitive Interviewing
The Cognitive Interview (CI) is a well-established protocol for interviewing witnesses. The current article presents a study space analysis of laboratory studies of the CI together with an empirical meta-analysis summarizing the past 25 years of research. The study space comprises 57 published articles (65 experiments) on the CI, providing an assessment of the boundary conditions underlying the analysis and application of this interview protocol. The current meta-analysis includes 46 pub- lished articles, including 20 articles published since the last meta-analysis conducted a decade earlier (Ko¨hnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull, 1999). Reassuringly for practitioners, the findings of the original meta-analysis were replicated with a large and significant increase in correct details and a small increase in errors. In addition we found that there were no differences in the rate at which details are confabulated. Importantly, the effect sizes were unaffected by the inclusion of recent studies using modified versions of the CI. The CI appeared to benefit older adult witnesses even more than younger adults. We highlight trends and gaps in research and discuss how our findings can inform policy and training decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信