(The null) Importance of police experience on intuitive credibility of people with intellectual disabilities.
Officer intuition is no better than chance at spotting true versus fake statements from adults with ID—use structured tools instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ohan et al. (2015) asked three groups to judge taped statements from adults with mild–moderate intellectual disability. The groups were rookie officers, seasoned officers, and psychology students.
Listeners guessed which statements were true and which were made up. No one got special training or tools.
What they found
Years on the job gave no edge. Veterans, rookies, and students all scored the same—near chance.
Experience did not sharpen gut feelings about credibility.
How this fits with other research
Delprato (2002) already warned that no validated risk-assessment tools exist for offenders with ID. The new data say officer hunches are no better.
Bhaumik et al. (2009) showed that staff observations of alertness in profound ID are shaky. L et al. now show that officer observations of honesty in mild–moderate ID are equally shaky.
Munde et al. (2012) found heart-rate data can back up alertness ratings. The pattern is clear: tie subjective ID judgments to objective measures or skip them.
Why it matters
If you interview clients with ID, drop the "I can just tell" mindset. Replace free-form questions with scripted, behavior-based protocols like WH-question checklists or statement-validation checklists. Record answers verbatim and compare to known facts. Your experience alone will not catch deception or false confessions.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap open-ended questions for a fixed checklist when you assess a client’s report.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In the present study, the intuitive ability of police to discriminate between real and false statements of people with mild and moderate (IQ range=50-80, average=60.0) intellectual disabilities (ID) was analyzed. The assessments issued by groups with different levels of experience in police techniques (psychology students, and police officers) were compared. The results showed no differences between the two groups in their ability to discriminate (d'=0.785 and d'=0.644, respectively). When the experience of the police was taken into consideration, no differences were found between "experienced" and "novice" police officers (d'=0.721 and d'=0.582, respectively). No differences were found in response criteria, which were neutral in all cases. Moreover, 34.73% of cases evaluated by the inexperienced group were incorrectly discriminated, in comparison to the 37.75% of incorrect assessments made by police. The implications of the limited ability of intuition to discriminate between real and simulated victims with ID, which did not yield significant differences between experienced and inexperienced assessors in obtaining and assessing statements, are discussed. In light of the results of this study, it is concluded that adequate resources and standardized procedures to properly address people with ID who come into contact with the police and judicial institutions need to be provided.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2015 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.009