Citation

Burrows KS, Powell MB. Aust. Psychol. 2014; 49(5): 297-304.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Australian Psychological Society, Publisher Wiley-Blackwell)

DOI

10.1111/ap.12068

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In investigative interviews with alleged victims of child sexual abuse, professionals must establish the nature of the alleged abuse by determining what body parts were involved in the offending. This can be difficult, however, because children often use colloquial (non‐anatomical) terms to describe genitalia, and there has been little direction for interviewers about clarifying these terms sufficiently to establish the charge. The aim of this study was to address the need for guidance from prosecutors about the level of clarity in terms required from a legal perspective, and how this clarity can be achieved. A focus group of nine prosecutors (representing all but one Australian State and Territory) were asked to consider what degree of clarity in terminology for genitalia was adequate and how such clarity could be achieved. Thematic analysis revealed that a reduction in specific questioning around genitalia would improve the usefulness of investigative interviews with children from a legal perspective. Recommendations for improving interviews about abuse with child witnesses are discussed.

Keywords

child sexual assault; child witness; investigative interviewing