Does it help, hurt, or something else? The effect of a something else response alternative on children's performance on forced-choice questions

Kamala London, Ashley K. Hall, Nicole Lytle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Forensic guidelines recommend minimizing forced-choice questions when interviewing children. We investigated whether adding a "something else" alternative to forced-choice questions affected 3- to 5-year-olds' (N = 94) reports of an event involving innocuous touch. Following a 1-week delay, children were randomly assigned to receive either standard 2-alternative forced-choice questions or the same questions with an additional something else alternative. All children received 3 counterbalanced question types: correct alternative present, no correct alternative present, and unanswerable. Children's overall accuracy was not affected by the something else alternative except on questions with no correct alternative present, where performance went from 15% to 31% accurate. Children selected or generated inaccurate and speculative responses to the majority of unanswerable questions regardless of a something else alternative. These findings suggest that the inclusion of a something else alternative does not bypass concerns about the use of forced-choice questions during interviews with children.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)281-289
Number of pages9
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume23
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2017

Fingerprint

performance
Touch
Guidelines
Interviews
inclusion
event
present
interview

Keywords

  • Children's eyewitness testimony
  • Forced-choice questions
  • Forensic interviews
  • Questioning techniques
  • Something else alternative

Cite this

@article{12d8d7560b7c40e09940eec26eda045e,
title = "Does it help, hurt, or something else? The effect of a something else response alternative on children's performance on forced-choice questions",
abstract = "Forensic guidelines recommend minimizing forced-choice questions when interviewing children. We investigated whether adding a {"}something else{"} alternative to forced-choice questions affected 3- to 5-year-olds' (N = 94) reports of an event involving innocuous touch. Following a 1-week delay, children were randomly assigned to receive either standard 2-alternative forced-choice questions or the same questions with an additional something else alternative. All children received 3 counterbalanced question types: correct alternative present, no correct alternative present, and unanswerable. Children's overall accuracy was not affected by the something else alternative except on questions with no correct alternative present, where performance went from 15{\%} to 31{\%} accurate. Children selected or generated inaccurate and speculative responses to the majority of unanswerable questions regardless of a something else alternative. These findings suggest that the inclusion of a something else alternative does not bypass concerns about the use of forced-choice questions during interviews with children.",
keywords = "Children's eyewitness testimony, Forced-choice questions, Forensic interviews, Questioning techniques, Something else alternative",
author = "Kamala London and Hall, {Ashley K.} and Nicole Lytle",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/law0000129",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "281--289",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Does it help, hurt, or something else? The effect of a something else response alternative on children's performance on forced-choice questions. / London, Kamala; Hall, Ashley K.; Lytle, Nicole.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 01.08.2017, p. 281-289.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does it help, hurt, or something else? The effect of a something else response alternative on children's performance on forced-choice questions

AU - London, Kamala

AU - Hall, Ashley K.

AU - Lytle, Nicole

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Forensic guidelines recommend minimizing forced-choice questions when interviewing children. We investigated whether adding a "something else" alternative to forced-choice questions affected 3- to 5-year-olds' (N = 94) reports of an event involving innocuous touch. Following a 1-week delay, children were randomly assigned to receive either standard 2-alternative forced-choice questions or the same questions with an additional something else alternative. All children received 3 counterbalanced question types: correct alternative present, no correct alternative present, and unanswerable. Children's overall accuracy was not affected by the something else alternative except on questions with no correct alternative present, where performance went from 15% to 31% accurate. Children selected or generated inaccurate and speculative responses to the majority of unanswerable questions regardless of a something else alternative. These findings suggest that the inclusion of a something else alternative does not bypass concerns about the use of forced-choice questions during interviews with children.

AB - Forensic guidelines recommend minimizing forced-choice questions when interviewing children. We investigated whether adding a "something else" alternative to forced-choice questions affected 3- to 5-year-olds' (N = 94) reports of an event involving innocuous touch. Following a 1-week delay, children were randomly assigned to receive either standard 2-alternative forced-choice questions or the same questions with an additional something else alternative. All children received 3 counterbalanced question types: correct alternative present, no correct alternative present, and unanswerable. Children's overall accuracy was not affected by the something else alternative except on questions with no correct alternative present, where performance went from 15% to 31% accurate. Children selected or generated inaccurate and speculative responses to the majority of unanswerable questions regardless of a something else alternative. These findings suggest that the inclusion of a something else alternative does not bypass concerns about the use of forced-choice questions during interviews with children.

KW - Children's eyewitness testimony

KW - Forced-choice questions

KW - Forensic interviews

KW - Questioning techniques

KW - Something else alternative

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021733070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/law0000129

DO - 10.1037/law0000129

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 281

EP - 289

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 3

ER -