Hypothesis-testing: A not-yet-successful implementation
non-CSA, HT, ’
The idea behind the hypothesis-testing approach, as elaborated in Korkman et al. [However, the current results do not necessarily mean that hypothesis-testing per se lacks efficacy. In our experiment, we did not assess whether the actual questions asked tested both abuse and non-abuse hypotheses in the hypothesis-testing conditions. It is thus possible that the HT group did conduct an interview that tested hypotheses in a balanced manner albeit not using open questions. So far no studies have assessed the efficacy of such an approach to CSA interviewing. However, we did not find any differences between the groups in conclusion correctness suggesting that this approach was neither clearly superior nor inferior to the other experimental groups. Moreover, in the present study, the interviewers lacked relevant experience in CSA interviews and the hypothesis-testing approach. Previous research evaluating professionals’ and laypersons’ knowledge of interviewing children pointed out that students are less knowledgeable than professionals, especially uninformed when considering the negative impact of leading questions [Notwithstanding a brief guideline on the importance of only employing recommended (e.g., open-ended questions) and non-leading questioning techniques provided to the participants before the first interview, it seemed that only building hypotheses may unintentionally shape the questioning styles of interviewers in a negative direction leading to an increased number of non-recommended questions [The combined interventions group obtained similar numbers of relevant, neutral, and wrong details as the Feedback group, but reached fewer completely correct conclusions. The tasks between the feedback group and the combined interventions group were different. One possible explanation is that when giving an explanation of what happened in the cases, the feedback group provided a report based on the information the avatar shared with them, whilst the combined intervention group had to compare the information elicited from the avatar with their hypotheses before they arrive at a judgment. It may be that information elicited was insufficient to allow for differentiating between the hypotheses and reaching a coherent conclusion.Interestingly, in correlation analyses, we found that participants who built more good quality hypotheses tended to ask more recommended questions. This positive association was primarily derived from an increase in non-CSA hypotheses built. The ability to build non-CSA hypotheses was also related to the average number of recommended questions presented by participants. These are encouraging findings and in line with our overall expectations, although not based on a priori hypotheses.