Examining the Complexity of Police Officers’ Language During Investigative Interviews with Adults and Youth

Meagan I. McCardle

doi:10.5334/jeps.444

Examining the Complexity of Police Officers’ Language During Investigative Interviews with Adults and Youth

Journal of European Psychology Students

Volume 9 (2018): Issue 1

By: Meagan I. McCardle

Open Access

|Dec 2018

Abstract

The complexity of interviewer and interviewee language in police interviews (N = 36) with adult suspects, adult witnesses, youth suspects, and youth witnesses were analyzed. Every interlocutor utterance was subjected to Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FK) and SMOG readability analyses. Median FK and SMOG scores revealed statistically significant differences in language complexity between interviewers and interviewees in the case of youth suspects, with police officers demonstrating more complex language than youth suspects. However, no significant differences in language complexity were found between interviewers and interviewees in the case of youth witnesses. Median FK and SMOG scores revealed that interviewer language with youth suspects was more complex, or equally as complex, as language used with adult suspects, respectively. The implications of these findings for youth comprehension and police practice are discussed.

References

Bala, N. (2003). Youth criminal justice law. Toronto: Irwin Law.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Campbell, K. (2005). Understanding Youth Justice in Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Canada Department of Justice. (1998). A strategy for youth justice renewal. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Luther, K. (2012). Measuring the Reading Complexity and Oral Comprehension of Canadian Youth Waiver Forms. Crime & Delinquency, 61(6), 1–31. DOI: 10.1177/0011128712453689
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Luther, K. (2014). On the Need to Ensure Better Comprehension of Interrogation Rights. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 18, 171–181. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1774.4004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ellis, L., Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. (2009). Handbook of Crime Correlates. Cambridge: Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fitzsimmons, P. R., Michael, B. D., Hulley, J. L., & Scott, G. O. (2010). A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 40, 292–296. DOI: 10.4997/JRCPE.2010.401
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional education programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248–259. DOI: 10.1177/106342660100900405
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Government of Canada. (2002, February 19). Youth Criminal Justice Act. Retrieved from Justice Laws Website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Y-1.5/FullText.html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195564
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Memphis: Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch. DOI: 10.21236/ADA006655
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Markwart, A., & Corrado, R. (1989). Is the Young Offenders Act more punitive? In: Beaulieu, L (ed.), Young offender dispositions: Perspectives on principles and practice. Toronto: Wall and Thompson.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McLaughlin, H. G. (1969). SMOG Grading – A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40011226
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(5), 1048–1064. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/073)
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Paasche-Orlow, M., Taylor, H., & Brancati, F. (2003). Reliability standard for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 721–727. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa021212
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rogers, R., Blackwood, H., Fiduccia, C., Steadham, J. A., Drogin, E., & Rogstad, J. (2012). Juvenile Miranda warnings: Perfunctory rituals or procedural safeguards? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 229–249. DOI: 10.1177/0093854811431934
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Savage, R. (2001). The “simple view” of reading: Some evidence and possible implications. Educational Psychology in Practice, 17, 17–33. DOI: 10.1080/02667360120039951
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Snowling, M. J., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C., & Tobin, V. (2000). Levels of literacy among juvenile offenders: The incidence of specific reading difficulties. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10(4), 229–241. DOI: 10.1002/cbm.362
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article