Skip to content

A meta‐analytic review of the Self‐Administered Interview©: quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

The Self‐Administered Interview (SAI©) is designed to elicit detailed witness reports in the aftermath of incidents. In two sets of meta‐analyses, we compared the number of correct details reported, the number of incorrect details reported, and the accuracy of reports provided by witnesses in initial reports (SAI© vs. other reporting formats) and in subsequent accounts (initial SAI© vs. no initial SAI©). The number of comparisons ranged from 15 to 19, (N = 722 to 977). For initial accounts, the SAI© was associated with more correct details and more incorrect details than other reporting formats; accuracy was slightly lower for the SAI© than for other reporting formats. Subsequent accounts were more detailed and accurate for witnesses who had completed an initial SAI© than for those who had not. The SAI© is an effective tool for capturing detailed initial accounts and for preserving witness memory until a formal interview can be conducted.
Original languageEnglish
JournalApplied Cognitive Psychology
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted for publication - 16 Oct 2020

Documents

  • A Meta-Analytic Review

    Rights statement: The embargo end date of 2050 is a temporary measure until we know the publication date. Once we know the publication date the full text of this article will be able to view shortly afterwards.

    Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 1.52 MB, PDF document

    Due to publisher’s copyright restrictions, this document is not freely available to download from this website until: 1/01/50

Related information

Relations Get citation (various referencing formats)

ID: 23166254