Clinical Measures in Forensic Settings

¶ … clinical measures in forensic settings is entitled, "Difficulties inherent in integrating clinical wisdom with empirical research in forensic interview" by Gilstrap and Cici. This article essentially functions as a critique of a research study performed by Sandra K. Hewitt, who published a book called "Assessing allegations of sexual abuse in preschool children: understanding small voices" about a study known as the Touch Survey.

In this survey, the author of the book made an attempt to bridge clinical methodologies in a forensic setting by interviewing a number of pre-school aged children to detect the incidence of sexual abuse. The researchers critique that study through the lens of seeing what sorts of assumptions the author identified and failed to identify in accomplishing her task. There are a number of aspects of forensic psychology and its field work that considerably exacerbate techniques that have purely been defined for clinical research.

At the same time, however, the article acknowledges some of the assumptions that forensics professionals utilize in their practices that may not appropriately mesh with clinical research, which hearkens to the debate regarding clinical and actuarial methods pertaining to forensics (Litwak, 2001, p.409). The findings were plentiful and primarily revolved around the notion that in the study conducted by Hewitt, there were problems with the representational aspect of the study, leading the children through the means of the questions, and with utilizing behavior as an indicator for sexual abuse.

In the study itself, Hewitt, interviewed young children by having them draw faces and impute a look on the face that directly corresponded to an action. In some instances, those actions were related to sexual contact with others. A thorough analysis of this article reveals that there is a distinct correlation between the representational issues and those based on asking questions that might be leading. The whole point of the study's use of having children draw pictures is to accommodate for a perceived lack of linguistic maturity.

However, as Gilstrap and Cici point out, "children who have linguistic immaturities might also have representational immaturities" (Gilstrap and Cici, 2001). While some children might not be able to sufficiently draw how they would feel, Hewitt attempted to steer them towards correct representation by asking a series of leading questions. The authors of the article determined that by directing children into a specific line of questioning regraind a certain action "gives the child material that might appear in subsequent play or narrative" (Gilstrap and Cici, 2001).

The true relationship between both of these issues is that ultimately, Hewitt also engaged in leading children through the use of imagery, by asking them to draw how they would feel if something sexual did happen to them. Finally, the last problem identified with using clinical techniques in a forensic setting is related to relying on aspects of behavior as being congruous with abuse.

Without properly attributing for the base rate of sexual abuse in the world or the population in which the children are, the propensity for gaining false positives is very real -- and problematic. Thus, there are many different important concepts a forensic psychologist could take away form this particular article. One is to fully account for the forms of immaturity that hinders children from being reliable sources of forensic evidence, which relates to both their speech and actions.

The most important one is to not bait them through leading questions -- and of.