In Episode 4 of Investigator Chronicles, I talk to child forensic interviewing specialist, Dayna Boyko, about her expertise in interviewing children. Dayna spent 25 years in the Toronto Police Service, 16 of which were spent working on the Internet Child Exploitation Team, where she became an expert in interviewing child survivors and witnesses of sexual violence.

In my short time with Dayna, I learned new things about interviewing children, and I was left wishing we had more time. For anyone who watches the episode and feels the same (or for anyone who hasn’t yet watched the episode), I asked Dayna for her top lessons for investigators interviewing children. Some of these lessons are discussed in the episode, but here they are:

1. 1. Children are more susceptible to being led than adults.

Children often want to please adults, and especially those in positions of authority like an investigator. If an investigator asks a leading question, a child is highly likely to agree with the question, even if that answer is incorrect. An investigator can lead by asking a leading question (a question that suggests the answer in the body of the question) but also by using a suggestive tone. While investigators should always ensure that their questions are neutral, this is even more important with children.

1. 2. Children under the age of 10 rarely understand abstract concepts like time and distance.

This means that if an investigator asks a child a question like “When did that happen?” or “How far away were they?”, they might give an answer (to please the investigator), but there is a good chance that the answer will not be accurate. Knowing this, investigators will need to probe further in interviews in order to get accurate information about time and space. This could be done by asking questions around the specific question. For example, instead of asking a child when something happened and relying on their answer, the investigator could probe the surrounding circumstances (who else was there, what was happening at the time, etc.) and these could potentially be explored to collect more accurate evidence about the timing.

1. 3. Children (including teens) often prefer to share information in ways other than talking to the investigator.

Investigators should be sure to have writing (and in the case of small children, maybe even drawing) materials so that children can be invited to share information in alternate ways if they seem uncomfortable talking to the investigator.

1. 4. Children can benefit from “non-contingent support.”

Even more than adults, children may respond to efforts on the part of the investigator to offer non-contingent support – which is support the investigator can provide which is not dependent on the specific information the child provides. Investigators providing support in an interview can, however, cross the line into non-neutrality.

For example, to help a child feel more comfortable in an interview, an investigator might say to a child, “Thank you for sitting so patiently in your chair today.”  as a form of “non-contingent” support. Conversely, it is not advisable to praise a child for sharing specific information – i.e. “Thank you for telling me about what happened with your teacher. What else happened with your teacher?”.  Continuing to praise a child for sharing information can prompt the child to keep sharing information to please the investigator, which information might now include fabrications or exaggerations. In doing so, the investigator can be veering into non-neutrality.

1. 5. Maximize the use of open-ended questions.

We know that this is preferred for adults, and the same holds true of children – you want them to be able to tell you their story. If all you are getting back from a child interview are one-word answers, like “yes” and “no,” your questions may not be open-ended, and you are not allowing the child (or adult) you are speaking with to provide you with the details that you need.

1. 6. Avoid “forced choice questions.”

“Forced choice questions” appear to force the interviewee to choose between only two available answers, neither of which may be the correct answer – for example: “Did you go to the store or to the movies?”  Of course, the better question is always the more neutral, “Where did you go?” but children sometimes need more guidance. Adults often understand that forced-choice questions are part of regular speech and will typically tell you when the answer is not one of the offered choices, but children struggle with this.  The danger is that a child might pick one of your choices, even if it is not correct. If you need to guide the child by offering choice, just be sure to leave open the possibility for another answer – “Did you go to the store or to the movies, or someplace else?”

1. 7. Children will have less time/patience for an investigator.

Investigators will need to plan for a shorter interview than they might like, and consequently prioritize what is most important. Alternatively, investigators may have an option to schedule multiple interviews with the child. And the younger the child, the shorter the interview will need to be.

1. 8. Ensure that the child’s basic needs are met before speaking with them.

Make sure they have eaten, had something to drink, and used the washroom if needed.  Failing to meet their needs can even further shorten the time you have to speak with the child.

1. 9. Ideally, do not rely on the child’s interview as the only evidence in your case.

Children do not have the same perspective and insight into the broader context of an investigation that adults often do. Whereas an adult might know to offer up additional evidence or places to look for evidence, children will rarely have that same capacity. As such, when interviewing children, investigators will need to make more active efforts to determine if there is additional evidence available. For example, a child may say they communicated with someone, but asking how they spoke with that person might reveal additional evidence, such as text messages or on social media.

1. 10. Time is of the essence.

The younger a child is, the faster they can forget what they have witnessed or experienced.  If possible, prioritize interviews with younger children first in investigations.

Of course, many of the above lessons work equally well for adults, but they are even more important to keep in mind when interviewing children. Dayna’s final tip is to consider the possibility of engaging a forensic child interviewer when the stakes are high. Like Dayna, these folks have specialized training in conducting child interviews, and are part of a community that ensures that they are up-to-date on best practices and developing research relating to child interviewing.