Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The quality of details when children and youths with intellectual disabilities are interviewed about their abuse experiences Cover

The quality of details when children and youths with intellectual disabilities are interviewed about their abuse experiences

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research
Volume 14 (2012): Issue 2
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Apr 2012
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Table 1. Summary of the participants' experiences, diagnoses and relationship to suspects.

Type of crimeRelationship to perpetratorDiagnosisSexual abusePhysical abuseRelativeImmediate familyFamiliarUnfamiliarIntellectual disabilities2217†96Intellectual disabilities/Autism spectrum disorder5234Autism spectrum disorder314††1Total303114137Notes: There were 32 witnesses and 33 interviews.†One victim mentioned two immediate family members as perpetrators and so was interviewed twice.††One victim mentioned two immediate family members.

Table 2. Mean number of central and peripheral details as a function of question type.

Central detailsPeripheral detailsCrimeSuspects' actionsVictims' actionsContextEmotionsTotalM (SD, %)M (SD, %)M (SD, %)M (SD, %)M (SD, %)M (SD, %)Open questionsInvitations5.78 (14.28, 4%)0.24 (0.56, 0%)0.24 (0.93, 0%)5.36 (10.26, 4%)0.81 (1.50, 0.5%)12.45 (23.31, 9.5%)Directives27.15 (19.00, 21%)1.66 (3.02, 1%)1.93 (2.12, 1%)21.69 (22.44, 17%)5.75 (5.17, 4%)58.21 (41.21, 44%)Focused questionsOption-posing27.33 (16.00, 21%)2.18 (3.14, 2%)2.39 (3.62, 2%)18.42 (14.45, 14%)3.75 (4.01, 3%)54.09 (26.71, 41%)Suggestive116 (3.51, 3%)0.18 (0.52, 0%)0.57 (0.96, 0%)2.51 (2.74, 2%)0.63 (1.45, 0.5%)7.42 (6.57, 5.5%)Total63.78 (40.18, 49%)4.27 (5.63, 3%)5.15 (5.35, 4%)48.00 (34.78, 36%)10.96 (8.75, 8%)132.18 (71.53, 100%)

Table 3. Mean number of details (and SD) elicited per question type.

Open questionsFocused questionsDetailsInvitationsDirectivesOption-posingSuggestiveCentral0.95 (1.27)0.60 (0.38)0.64 (0.39)0.52 (0.49)Peripheral1.30 (3.40)0.60 (0.55)0.52 (0.72)0.44 (0.46)

Table 4. Agreement or disagreement to risky questions in relation to type of details

Option-posingSuggestiveAgreementDisagreementAgreementDisagreementTotalM (SD, %)M (SD, %)M (SD, %)M (SD, %)M (SD, %)Central19.60 (13.62, 32%)12.30 (8.82, 20%)2.84 (2.84, 5%)1.42 (2.06, 2%)38.63 (18.32, 59%)Peripheral13.96 (9.71, 23%)8.24 (8.22, 13%)2.24 (2.68, 4%)0.90 (1.80, 1%)22.87 (15.58, 41%)Total33.54 (17.32, 55%)20.54 (13.88, 33%)5.09 (4.34, 8%)2.33 (3.46, 4%)61.51 (29.22, 100%)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2010.541615 | Journal eISSN: 1745-3011
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 113 - 125
Submitted on: May 3, 2010
Accepted on: Nov 15, 2010
Published on: Apr 2, 2012
Published by: Stockholm University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
children,
youths,
intellectual disabilities,
eyewitnesses,
quality of details

© 2012 Ann-Christin Cederborg, Elin Hultman, David La Rooy, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 14 (2012): Issue 2
Next article