OBJECTIVE: The current study examined children's eyewitness memory nearly 4 years after an event and the ability of adults to evaluate such memory. METHOD: In Phase 1, 7- and 10-year olds were interviewed about a past event after a nearly 4-year delay. The interview included leading questions relevant to child abuse as well as statements designed to implicate the original confederate. In Phase 2, laypersons and professionals watched a videotaped interview (from Phase 1) that they were misled to believe was from an ongoing abuse investigation. Respondents then rated the child's accuracy and credibility, and the probability that the child had been abused. RESULTS: In Phase 1, few significant age differences in memory accuracy were found, perhaps owing in part to small sample size. Although children made a variety of commission errors, none claimed outright to have been abused. Nevertheless, some of the children's answers (e.g., saying that their picture had been taken, or that they had been in a bathtub) might cause concern in a forensic setting. In Phase 2, professional and nonprofessional respondents were unable to reliably estimate the overall accuracy of children's statements. However, respondents were able to reasonably estimate the accuracy of children's answers to abuse questions. Respondents were also more likely to think that 7-year olds compared to 10-year olds had been abused. Professionals were significantly less likely than nonprofessionals to believe that credible evidence of abuse existed. Professionals who indicated personal experience with child abuse or a close relationship with an abuse victim were more likely to rate children as abused. A gender bias to rate boys as more accurate than girls was apparent among laypersons but not professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Children were generally resistant to suggestions that abuse occurred during a long-ago generally forgotten event, but some potentially concerning errors were made. Both professionals and non-professionals had difficulty estimating the accuracy of children's reports, but adults were more likely to rate children as accurate if the children answered abuse-related questions correctly. Training and personal experience were associated with adults' ratings of children's reports. Implications for evaluations of child abuse reports are discussed.
OBJECTIVE: The current study examined children's eyewitness memory nearly 4 years after an event and the ability of adults to evaluate such memory. METHOD: In Phase 1, 7- and 10-year olds were interviewed about a past event after a nearly 4-year delay. The interview included leading questions relevant to child abuse as well as statements designed to implicate the original confederate. In Phase 2, laypersons and professionals watched a videotaped interview (from Phase 1) that they were misled to believe was from an ongoing abuse investigation. Respondents then rated the child's accuracy and credibility, and the probability that the child had been abused. RESULTS: In Phase 1, few significant age differences in memory accuracy were found, perhaps owing in part to small sample size. Although children made a variety of commission errors, none claimed outright to have been abused. Nevertheless, some of the children's answers (e.g., saying that their picture had been taken, or that they had been in a bathtub) might cause concern in a forensic setting. In Phase 2, professional and nonprofessional respondents were unable to reliably estimate the overall accuracy of children's statements. However, respondents were able to reasonably estimate the accuracy of children's answers to abuse questions. Respondents were also more likely to think that 7-year olds compared to 10-year olds had been abused. Professionals were significantly less likely than nonprofessionals to believe that credible evidence of abuse existed. Professionals who indicated personal experience with child abuse or a close relationship with an abuse victim were more likely to rate children as abused. A gender bias to rate boys as more accurate than girls was apparent among laypersons but not professionals. CONCLUSIONS:Children were generally resistant to suggestions that abuse occurred during a long-ago generally forgotten event, but some potentially concerning errors were made. Both professionals and non-professionals had difficulty estimating the accuracy of children's reports, but adults were more likely to rate children as accurate if the children answered abuse-related questions correctly. Training and personal experience were associated with adults' ratings of children's reports. Implications for evaluations of child abuse reports are discussed.