No Evidence Against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or the Use of Registered Intermediaries for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017).

Sasson et al. (2018) wrote a reply paper. They looked at one study that told police to stop using sketches, labels, and registered helpers when they interview kids with autism.

The authors checked the methods of that study. They say the proof was too thin to dump these tools.

The team found big holes in the earlier study. The sample was tiny and the test did not mirror real police rooms.

Because of those flaws, they say we have no good reason to drop sketch reinstatement, verbal labels, or registered intermediaries.

Koegel et al. (2014) already showed that kids with autism need special interview care. Their review said open prompts help and leading questions hurt. J et al. build on that by guarding tools that create clear, open talk.

Laugeson et al. (2014) also warned about weak methods in autism work. They proved that "better eyesight" in autism was just a testing error. J et al. use the same logic: bad method, bad conclusion.

No true clash exists here. The older paper cried "stop," but its evidence was soft. The new paper cries "wait, keep the tools" and shows why.

If you interview children with autism for court, keep sketching the scene, giving labels, and using trained helpers. One shaky study is not enough to throw away supports that may boost memory and comfort. Push for tighter research before you change real-world practice.