Interviewing alleged victims with intellectual disabilities.

A-Antaki et al. (2008) watched real Swedish police tapes. They counted every question officers asked alleged victims who had intellectual disabilities.

The team wanted to see which question style police used most. They also noted when witnesses gave full, accurate answers.

Officers asked mostly focused questions like 'Was the car red?' They rarely used open prompts such as 'Tell me what happened.'

Focused questions cut the amount of free recall. When officers switched to short, directive prompts, witnesses gave clearer facts.

A-Bigby et al. (2009) is the direct follow-up. Same tapes, new angle: repeating those focused questions made 40 % of youths change answers. Together the pair shows that both using and re-using narrow questions hurts testimony.

DeRoma et al. (2004) seems to clash. That lab study found jurors rated teens with mild ID just as believable as younger, typical kids. The field data say police still treat these witnesses as unreliable and therefore stick to closed questions. The gap is in officer behavior, not juror bias.

McMillan et al. (1999) backs the main point with a different group. Structured interviews beat questionnaires for true phobia recall. Open, structured prompts win across populations.

If you assess abuse claims or prepare clients for court, ask open questions first and keep sentences short. Model this in your reports and train legal partners to do the same. Better questions yield clearer statements and stronger protection for people with ID.