Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Childfirst® Forensic Interview Training Program: Rita Farrell, Bs Victor Vieth, JD, Ma
Childfirst® Forensic Interview Training Program: Rita Farrell, Bs Victor Vieth, JD, Ma
A policy that limits the investigative or fact-finding 1. Children, particularly young children, may be
process to a single interview is not recommended.… better at demonstrating an event or experience
The number of interviews should be governed than describing it.
by the number necessary to elicit complete and 2. Using media gives the forensic interviewer
accurate information from the child. One interview and, more importantly, the child two means of
is sometimes sufficient, but multiple interviews may communication—verbal and actions.
produce additional relevant information, as long 3. The use of media may, in some instances, limit
as they are open-ended and non-leading (APSAC the number of leading questions. This is because
Taskforce, 2012, p. 9). instead of an interviewer probing for details
with a series of direct questions, a child may be
ChildFirst® has developed a 2 ½ day training course able to demonstrate his or experience with the
to meet the needs of children who require additional, use of dolls or by drawing.
non-duplicative sessions with a forensic interviewer. 4. Some media may provide “cues” that triggers a
ChildFirst® EX is a purposeful and defensible process child’s memory.
for conducting interviews with children who may 5. Media may overcome the reluctance of children
to disclose abuse (Dickinson & Poole, 2017).
60 APSAC ADVISOR | Vol. 32, No. 2
APSAC ADVISOR | Vol. 32, No. 2
ChildFirst® Forensic Interview Training Program
6. Even if a child is willing to share an experience been a topic of discussion and debate for many years.
of abuse, it may simply be less stressful to show ChildFirst® believes that we should be very thoughtful
than to tell. before we introduce physical evidence to a child in a
forensic interview or, for that matter, in a court of law
ChildFirst® supports the use of anatomical dolls when or any other phase of an investigation or prosecution.
appropriate and when used consistent with research In most cases, introducing evidence to a child is not
and applicable guidelines (Gundersen National Child necessary in obtaining the information needed to
Protection Training Center, 2016; Faller, 2005; Faller, protect a child or secure justice.
2007; APSAC Taskforce, 1995; Everson & Boat, 1994).
This means there needs to be a legitimate purpose Although introducing evidence may expedite a
for introducing the dolls, the child needs to be able disclosure or the arrest of a suspect, some physical
to make a representational shift, and the tools need evidence may be traumatic for a child and this trauma
to be properly introduced and utilized. The dolls are may extend long into the future (Gewirtz-Meydan,
only used as a demonstration aid (Hlavka, Olinger, Walsh, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2018). Introducing
& Lashley, 2010) and only after the child has verbally evidence may also weaken the case by focusing only
disclosed maltreatment. The ChildFirst® international, on the evidence already in the possession of law
national and state programs have published a detailed enforcement as opposed to learning all the details of a
literature review on the research on dolls and their child’s experience—details that often involve multiple
appropriate and inappropriate use (Gundersen, 2016). forms of abuse (Turner, Finkelhor, & Omrod, 2010;
Finkelhor, Omrod, & Turner, 2007). Stated differently,
ChildFirst® teaches the utilization of anatomical focusing on the evidence already obtained may bring
diagrams in two ways. First, with certain ages of confirmation from a child concerning the tip of the
children, used only after an open invitation, to see what iceberg but may result in the MDT missing the iceberg
the child calls different parts of a body. Second, at any itself.
age, the diagrams can be used for clarification purposes
after a child has disclosed or communicated a touch or Introducing evidence requires advanced training, and
other activity concerning a body part. whether or not to do this is a decision best made by a
multidisciplinary team that includes, if at all possible,
Unlike anatomical dolls, there are comparatively few input from a mental health professional. Forensic
studies on anatomical diagrams and the applicability of interviewers and teams should consider and prioritize
these studies to actual usage of diagrams in the field is the child’s health, welfare, and safety (National
debatable (Gundersen, 2016; Lyon, 2012). According Children’s Advocacy Center, 2013, APSAC Taskforce,
to the OJJDP Best Practices Guide, “Ongoing research 2012).
is necessary to shed further light on the influence of
various types of media on children’s verbal descriptions Summary
of remembered events” (Newlin et al., 2015, p. 7). Although ChildFirst® has undergone many
ChildFirst® has called for more research, better modifications over the past twenty years, the program
research, neutral research, the direct involvement of has steadfastly maintained that the needs of children
frontline professionals in the design of future studies, must outweigh the needs of professionals. ChildFirst®
and studying the possible usage of media not only in has also unreservedly continued our commitment
sexual abuse cases but also cases of physical abuse, to making high quality forensic interview training
emotional abuse, neglect, torture, and polyvictimization available at the local and state levels. If high quality
(Gundersen, 2016, pp. 21-22). training is not available or affordable, MDTs are ill-
equipped to properly assess allegations of abuse and
Use of Physical Evidence in are severely hampered in their ability to pursue justice
and secure critical services for a child or family. Simply
Forensic Interviews stated, quality training is the foundation of our nation’s
Introducing physical evidence in forensic interviews has
61
ChildFirst® Forensic Interview Training Program
child protection system.
About the Authors
We believe that every jurisdiction has professionals Rita Farrell, BS, is Director of ChildFirst® of the Zero Abuse
capable of teaching the complexities of properly Project. She has been in the field for more than 20 years and
conducting a forensic interview as one part of an MDT manages the ChildFirst® Forensic Interview Training Program,
investigation. Indeed, we believe that local professionals the ChildFirst® Arkansas state program, and the development of
advanced training courses and programs for forensic interviewers.
can teach the course more effectively because they are
better equipped to take into account differences in Victor Vieth, JD, MA, is Director of Education and Research of the
state laws and the nuances of local judges, and they Zero Abuse Project. He previously served as executive director of
have a deeper understanding of local cultures and the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, as well as
communities. Twenty years of ongoing teaching of the past President of the Academy on Violence and Abuse.
course in states throughout the United States, as well as
the nations of Colombia and Japan, indicate our trust in
frontline professionals is well placed.
References
ChildFirst® Forensic Interview Training Program
APSAC Taskforce. (1995). Practice Guidelines: Use of Anatomical Dolls in Child Sexual Abuse Assessments.
APSAC Practice Guidelines. Retrieved from apsac.org/guidelines
APSAC Taskforce. (2012). Practice Guidelines: Forensic Interviewing in Cases of Suspected Child Abuse. APSAC
Practice Guidelines. Retrieved from apsac.org/guidelines
Cross, T.P., & Whitcomb, D. (2017). The practice of prosecuting child maltreatment: Results of an online survey
of prosecutors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 20–28.
Dickinson, J., & Poole, D.A. (2017). The influence of disclosure history and body diagrams on children’s reports
of inappropriate touching: Evidence from a new analog paradigm. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 1–12.
Everson, M., & Boat, B. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of the
major uses and criticisms of the dolls in child sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(2),
113–129.
Faller, K.C. (2005). Anatomical dolls: Their use in assessment of children who may have been sexually abused.
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(3), 1–21.
Faller, K.C. (2007). Interviewing children about sexual abuse: Controversies and best practice. Oxford University Press.
Faller, K.C. (2015). Forty years of forensic interviewing of children suspected of sexual abuse, 1974-2014:
Historical benchmarks. Social Sciences, 4, 34–65.
Faller, K.C., Cordisco Steele, L., & Nelson-Gardell, D. (2010). Allegations of sexual abuse of a child: What to do
when a single forensic interview isn’t enough. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(5), 572–589.
Finkelhor, D., Omrod, R.K., & Turner, H.A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child
victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 7–26.
Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Walsh, W., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2018). The complex experience of child pornography
survivors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 80, 238–248.
Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center and the ChildFirst/Finding Words Forensic Interview
Training Programs. (2016). Anatomical Dolls and Diagrams. La Crosse, WI: GNCPTC.
62 APSAC ADVISOR | Vol. 32, No. 2
APSAC ADVISOR | Vol. 32, No. 2
ChildFirst® Forensic Interview Training Program
References
Hershkowitz, I., & Terner, A. (2007). The effects of repeated interviewing on children’s forensic statements of
sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(9), 1131-1143.
Hlavka, A., Olinger, S.D., & Lashley, J. (2010). The use of anatomical dolls as a demonstration aid in child sexual
abuse interviews: A study of forensic interviewers’ perceptions. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(5), 519–553.
Knox, B.L., Starling, S.P., Feldman, K.W., Kellogg, N.D., Fraiser, L.D., & Tiapula, S. (2014). Torture as a form of
child abuse. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 7, 37–49.
La Rooy, D., Katz, C., Malloy, L., & Lamb, M. (2010). Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews?
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 16(4), 373–392.
La Rooy, D., Lamb, M., & Pipe, M.E. (2009). Repeated interviewing: A critical evaluation of risks and potential
benefits. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations (pp.
327–361). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lyon, T.D. (2012). Twenty-five years of interviewing research and practice: Dolls, diagrams, and the dynamics
of abuse disclosure. APSAC Advisor, 24, 14–19.
National Children’s Advocacy Center. (2013). Position paper on the introduction of evidence in forensic
interviews of children. Huntsville, AL: Author.
National Children’s Alliance. (2017). Standards for accredited members. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Newlin, C., Cordisco-Steele, L., Chamberlin, A., Anderson, J., Kenniston, J., Russell, A., Stewart, H., & Vaughan-
Eden, V. (2015). Child forensic interviewing: Best practices. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, September
2015, 1–17.
Russell, A. (2018). The spiritual impact of child abuse and exploitation: What research tells us. Currents in
Mission and Theology, 45, 14–19.
Shabazz, R., & Vieth, V.I. (2001). The National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, OJJDP Fact Sheet, August 2001.
Tishelman, A.C., & Fontes, L.A. (2017). Religion in child sexual abuse forensic interviews. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 63, 120–130.
Turner, H.A., Finkelhor, D., & Omrod, R. (2010). Poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(3), 323–330.
Vieth, V.I. (2006). Unto the third generation: A call to end child abuse in the United States within 120 years
(revised and expanded). Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, 28(1), 1–74.
Vieth, V.I. (2009a). Picture this: Photographing a child abuse crime scene. CenterPiece, 1(5), 1–4.
Vieth, V.I. (2009b). The Forensic interviewer at trial: Guidelines for the admission and scope of expert witness
testimony concerning an investigative interview in a case of child abuse. William Mitchell Law Review,
36(1), 186–219.
Vieth, V.I. (2010a). When faith hurts: Overcoming spirituality-based blocks and problems before, during and
after the forensic interview. CenterPiece, 2(10), 1–6.
Vieth, V.I. (2010b). When the child has spoken: Corroborating the forensic interview. CenterPiece, 2(5), 1–6.
Vieth, V.I., & Singer, P. (2019). Wounded souls: The need for child protection professionals and faith leaders to
recognize and respond to the spiritual impact of child abuse. Mitchell Hamline Law Review, 45(4),
1213–1234.
Walker, D.F., Reid, H.W., O’Neill, T., & Brown, L. (2012). Changes in personal religion/spirituality during and
after childhood abuse: A review and synthesis. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 1(2), 130–145.
63