JCPSLP Vol 21 No 1 2019

The role of speech-language pathologists in the justice system

Around the journals

were conducted to report differences in the number of correct details during each interview for the two groups of children. Children with ASD produced an average between 18.47 and 32.00 correct details, which was similar across all interviews. When contrasted by type of information, only setting provided significant results with the children providing less detail to the RI interview. TD children provided significantly more detail in the RI (53.92) and the Verbal labels (37.59) interviews than in the best-practice interviews (30.04), with no difference in the number of incorrect details. Each interview condition resulted in an increase of different types of detail (e.g., RI > people and actions, Verbal > setting and objects, Sketch-RC >general details than the best-practice interview). Henry et al. delineate a variety of variables: number of children who did not recall any details (ASD > TD), differences in RIs, impact of intelligence, language, age, and the saliency of the staged event. Importantly, neither of the additions to best practice hindered the witnesses’ success. Despite the lack of evidence that RIs provide benefits to children with ASD to the same extent that they did for the TD children, RIs have a remit broader than advice on questioning to increase detail. Henry et al. suggest further work to systematically evaluate other aspects of the RI role such as educating police, enhancing witness experience, and making recommendations around environment. RIs’ individualised intervention is discussed as particularly suited to the unique impact of ASD on a child’s capabilities. This study is a comprehensive evaluation of currently practised methods (in England and Wales). It provides support for the capability of children with ASD to be asked for evidence (high numbers of accurate detail) and for the use of RIs with TD children. However, further empirical evidence is needed to support the use of RIs with children with ASD and, indeed, other communication vulnerabilities. Winstanley, R. M., Webb, R. T., & Cont-Ramsden, G. (2017). More or less likely to offend? Young adults with a history of identified developmental language disorders . International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders , 53 (2), 256–270. Sally Kedge (@TalkingTroubleNZ) Winstanley et al. gives SLPs and others working in many contexts food for thought across a wide range of topics in this important carefully reasoned paper. Early intervention, the long-term impact of developmental language disorder (DLD), behaviour, emotional regulation, social skills, involvement in justice, drugs, alcohol and SLP terminology are just some of the issues under discussion. The title poses a thorny question: “More or less likely to offend? Young adults with a history of identified developmental language disorders?” We know from

Henry, L. A., Crane, L., Nash, G., Hobson, Z., Kirke-Smith, M., & Wilcock, R. (2017). Verbal, visual, and intermediary support for child witnesses with autism during investigative interviews . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder s, 47 (8), 2348–2362. Lydia Timms (@LydiaTimms) With each state and territory deciding on ways to best support vulnerable witnesses during investigative interviewing, it is important to learn from others’ experiences and to draw from empirical evidence. Henry et al. (2017) outline three additions to current best-practice interviewing in England and Wales and evaluate this success in typically developing children (TD, n = 199) and children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD, n = 71). Success is defined as an increase in the amount of information provided without a corresponding decrease in the accuracy of that information. The best-practice interview refers to the guidelines provided by the Ministry of Justice (UK) to Investigative Interviewers. These interview guidelines appear in line with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development protocol and is similar to a number of frameworks used by Australian investigative interviewers. Henry et al. outlines three interviewing methods that have potential to enhance current best- practice interviewing for use with vulnerable witnesses. These methods are: Verbal labels, Sketch reinstatement of context (Sketch-RC) and Registered intermediaries (RI). Verbal labels are used during the free recall phase of the interview where witnesses are asked to share everything they remember about an event and the interviewer will verbally scaffold this recall around (a) the people; (b) the setting; (c) the objects and actions and (d) what the people said. According to the evidence, this method enhances narratives and focus of relevant aspects of children with ASD. Sketch-RC is also introduced in the free recall phase where witnesses are encouraged to draw whatever they believe will help them to remember the event and to describe the elements of the sketch. The evidence indicates that this method supports accurate recall of children with ASD. The third method is applied more holistically with trained RIs assessing the witnesses, advising on interviewing techniques specific to the child, and intervening during the interview when necessary. Henry et al. highlights that RIs have not yet been rigorously evaluated for use with children with ASD. All three methods were compared to the original best-practice interview for both children with ASD and TD children. All participants (aged 6–11 years) were exposed to a staged event and were then (1 week later) presented with one of the three methods or the best-practice interviewing condition. The authors included measures of intelligence, language, memory, and attention. Regression analyses

42

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 1 2019

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology