1 / 16

Toward Assisting Older Witnesses and Victims to Give Best Evidence

Toward Assisting Older Witnesses and Victims to Give Best Evidence . Coral J. Dando :Lancaster University Fiona Gabbert : University of Abertay Lorraine Hope: Portsmouth University. Introduction. World population is aging – by 2020 + 65 > under 18s

montana
Download Presentation

Toward Assisting Older Witnesses and Victims to Give Best Evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Toward Assisting Older Witnesses and Victims to Give Best Evidence Coral J. Dando :Lancaster University Fiona Gabbert: University of Abertay Lorraine Hope: Portsmouth University

  2. Introduction • World population is aging – by 2020 + 65 > under 18s • Challenging for society - Significant challenges for CJS • Consistently the victims of certain types of crime • Effects of healthy aging are deferential – some types of memory less affected – does affect episodic memory and source monitoring • Witnesses/victims – episodic memory & ability to distinguish whether the retrieved memory does concern an actually experienced event crucial (versus general knowledge, previously experienced events, post event info etc.).

  3. Questions Questions… • How to support + 65 witnesses & victims of crime ? • How to elicit best evidence: ‘best quality’ and ‘best quantity’? • Could we add to the interviewers’ tool - reduce cognitive load but retain efficacy? • Current value for money climate - Could a memory trace be consolidated immediately post event, and retrieved later when time/resources allow?

  4. Rationale • MRC is crucial to the success of the CI, but more demanding for older witnesses - several concurrent cognitive operations • Used a modified version: Sketch RC - Effective with younger adults • Less interviewer intervention • Self administered interview (SAI) been effective with younger adults • Used a slightly modified version

  5. Participants & Procedure • 100 adult volunteer participants M = 68.9 years (64 – 81yrs) - Members of adult learning/community groups • At Time 1, all viewed a live event, which took place prior to a lecture (unexpected, incidental encoding) • Event duration 45 seconds, followed by community lecture (45 mins in duration) • Randomly allocated to an experimental condition (4) • At Time 2 (48 hrs post Time 1) participants were all interviewed about the event • Mini Mental States examination – Cognitive impairment • Geriatric depression scale – Depressive symptoms

  6. Experimental Conditions • 4 conditions - Time 1 & Time 2 manipulations

  7. Materials • Time 1 - Self Administered Interview (Gabbert, Hope, & Fisher, 2006) • Larger font (16pt) • One instruction only per page • Person drawings – when requested • Formatting • Time 2 - Structured interview • Sketch reinstatement of context interview (Sketch RC interview: Dando, Wilcock, & Milne, 2009) • Mental reinstatement of context interview (MRC interview

  8. Interview Structure

  9. Scoring • Time 1 SAI booklets were scored using a scoring guide (Gabbert, Hope & Fisher, 2006) • Time 2 interviews were audio recorded and scored using a template • Number of correct, inaccurate & confabulated items • Position of recalled items (phase) • Type …

  10. Results (Manipulation checks) • No significant differences emerged across the groups • Age - (Group 1, M = 70.8; Group 2, M = 69.8; Group 3 M = 70.70; Group 4, M = 66.8) • MMSE - (Group 1, M = 29.4; Group 2, M = 29.12; Group 3, M = 29.36; Group 4, M = 28.88 ) • GDS - (Group 1, M = 4.76; Group 2, M = 3.28; Group 3 M = 5.65; Group 4, M = 4.36)

  11. Results (Global Memorial Performance Time 2) • Significant effect of condition on correct recall: SAI & Sketch and • SAI & MRC > No SAI conditions (p< .001) • SAI & Sketch > SAI & MRC (p< .001) • No other sig performance differences

  12. Results (Memorial Performance Time 2 as a Function of Phase) • 2 recall attempts (FR & Questioning) • Sig effect of condition on correct items recalled in the FR phase SAI & Sketch and SAI & MRC > Non SAI conditions (p< .001) • SAI & Sketch > SAI & MRC (p< .001)

  13. Results (Time 1/Time 2 Performance) • Correct items information loss from Time 1 to Time 2 – (p< .001)

  14. Results (Time 1/Time 2 Performance) Increased confabulations from Time 1 to Time 2 – (p< .001)

  15. Discussion • Early consolidation versus not consolidatingeffective – indicates SAI suitability for older witnesses (Qualitative data) • Some form of RC beneficial versus no RC effective for protecting correct information – Sketch better • Salient retrieval cues • No interviewer interference • Does not necessitate several concurrent cognitive operations • Different pattern of Sketch MRC results than with younger adults (reduced confabulations and increased accuracy) – Just interviews

  16. Limitations • Adult learners – education is a sig predictor of Cognitive Reserve • No eyesight test • Not a ‘real’ crime • No comparison memory consolidation tool • No type of info data available, yet!

More Related