Should We Question How We Question Children?

  • Nancy E. Walker
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 291)


Children appear in court following trauma in both adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Although some countries (e.g., Israel) spare children the necessity of appearing at trial by questioning specially trained youth investigators in their stead, most systems require that, absent special circumstances, when a case proceeds to trial children provide testimony following victimization. In addition, children who allege that they have been victimized must be questioned at some point during legal proceedings, whether during criminal investigations, depositions, and/or at trial. It is important, therefore, to investigate children’s comprehension of the various types of question forms they are likely to encounter during legal proceedings. The purpose of this section is to integrate legal policy, clinical practice and empirical findings regarding the questioning of child witnesses following trauma.


Child Protective Service Question Form Legal Policy Child Witness Closed Circuit Television 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC). (1990). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  2. California Codes, §765(b).Google Scholar
  3. Lamb, M. E., Herschkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hovav, M., Manor, T., Yudilevitch, L. (in press). Effects of investigative utterance types on Israeli children’s reponses. International Journal of Behavioral Development. Google Scholar
  4. Minnesota Statutes, §592.02(m).Google Scholar
  5. Pennsylvania Statutes, §42-5983(a).Google Scholar
  6. People v. Buckey, No. A750900 (filed Mar. 22, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  7. Perry, N. S., McAuliff, B. D., Tam, P., Claycomb, L., Dostal, C., Flanagan, C. (1995). When lawyers question children: Is justice served? Law and Human Behavior, 19, 609 - 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. State v. Michaels, 625 A.2d 489 (N.J. App. 1993), aff’d, 1994 WL 278424 ( N.J. Sup. 1994 ).Google Scholar
  9. Walker, N. E., Hunt, J. S. (in press). Interviewing child victim-witnesses: What you ask is what you get. In C. P. Thompson, D. Herrmann, J. D. Read, D. Bruce, D. Payne, M. Toglia (Eds)., Eyewitness Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Walker N. E., Nguyen, M. (1996). Interviewing the child witness: The do’s and the don’t’s, the how’s and the why’s. Creighton Law Review, 29, 1587 – 1617.Google Scholar
  11. Warren, A. R., Woodall, C. E., Hunt, J. S., Perry, N. W. (1996). “It sounds good in theory, but... ”: Do investigative interviewers follow guidelines based on memory research? Child Maltreatment, 1,231-245. Washington Revised Code Annotated, §7.69A.030(1).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy E. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Creighton UniversityOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations