Two Interviews, One Ruler, and a Detail That Appears on Day Nine
During rest time at a preschool, a 5-year-old told her teacher that the classroom aide 'smacked' a classmate. The director interviewed the girl twice that afternoon, asking, 'Did Ms. R. hit him with the wooden ruler? Show me where,' and then brought in a 4-year-old who had been in the room, questioning him in front of the first child with the same wording. Nine days later, a forensic interviewer meets both children. By then the 5-year-old says, 'She hit him three times with the ruler, and then she hit me' - a detail that did not appear in the first account. The 4-year-old says he 'doesn't remember' but adds, 'My friend said she hit him.' The aide has been suspended. Center policy requires a report to child protective services within 24 hours, and that report was made on day one.
1. Evaluate the reliability of these accounts using developmental research on memory and suggestibility.
Read the worked answer
Hold several facts together rather than choosing a side.
Preschoolers can give accurate free-recall accounts of salient events, and their errors cluster around specific and suggestive questions rather than being invented from nothing. The director's wording is the textbook hazard: 'Did Ms. R. hit him with the wooden ruler?' is a yes/no question that supplies the answer, and 'Show me where' invites the child to produce a location she never offered.
The joint interview adds two further problems. The 4-year-old's 'my friend said she hit him' is a source-monitoring error - he is reporting where the information came from, not lying. And the two children hearing one another creates post-event contamination.
Nine days is not itself a problem. Nine days filled with repeated leading questioning and conversation between witnesses is. None of this establishes that the children are unreliable; it establishes that the conditions for a clean report were destroyed before the forensic interview. The interviewer now works with a contaminated record and must weigh it, not discard it.
2. What should the forensic interview look like, and what must it avoid?
Read the worked answer
Use a structured protocol such as the NICHD interview and see the children separately on the same day, out of earshot of each other and away from the director.
The structure: rapport, then a practice narrative about a neutral event to establish the expectation that the child tells everything and that 'I don't know' is acceptable, then a free-recall invitation ('Tell me everything that happened that day, from the beginning'), then open who/what/where prompts, and only then focused questions. Closed and multiple-choice questions are a last resort and should be flagged as such in the record.
What to avoid: naming the ruler, saying 'your teacher told me,' asking 'did she hit you,' revealing what the other child said, and any invitation to demonstrate a detail the child has not produced spontaneously. Record verbatim.
Documenting the pre-interview history - who asked what, how many times, in front of whom - is not paperwork. It is the only thing that will later let anyone weigh the statement. The interviewer should also ask open 'tell me more' when new material emerges rather than converting it into a confirmation.
3. Can the new allegation ('she hit me too') be used? Explain what would make it more or less credible.
Read the worked answer
Treat it as an open question, because both errors are available.
Dismissing it as 'classic suggestibility' ignores that the initial disclosure was of a smack to another child, that a child may omit her own experience out of fear or shame, and that children more often under-report than fabricate. Accepting it at face value ignores that the questioners spent an afternoon talking about hitting with a ruler, which is exactly the content now surfacing.
What raises credibility: the detail emerged spontaneously in free recall rather than after a leading prompt; it is elaborated with sensory or contextual detail the interviewers never scripted; it stays consistent across open prompts; and it fits the aide's access and opportunity.
What lowers it: it appears only after direct questions naming the object, it drifts with each retelling, or it borrows vocabulary from adults.
The suspension and the CPS report proceed on reasonable suspicion and do not depend on this detail. What should not happen is a determination that this child was abused resting on a statement obtained this way.