Codebook

1 Information-Seeking Prompts

Interviewer prompts that are not information-seeking, including minimal encouragers (see Note 5.3) and clarification-/confirmation-seeking prompts (see Note 5.2), will not be coded.

1.1 Open Questions

A

Anchor: initial prompt to introduce the topic of concern for the interview

• “Tell me what (you have come/we are) here to talk about.”

• Not always open-ended

INV

Open-ended initial invitation

BQ

Open-ended breadth question

DQ

Open-ended depth question

Open-ended questions encourage an elaborate response but do not tell an interviewee what specific information is required. Interviewees have the freedom to choose what information will be reported and to narrate what happened in their own words (see Note 5.4).

1. Open-ended initial invitation: These questions encourage interviewees to report everything about an event or occurrence of the event. They are typically the first prompt to start talking about the event (or an event occurrence).

   • Tell me everything that happened at Dan’s house, from the very beginning to the end.

   • What happens when Jim hurts you?

2. Open-ended breadth questions: These encourage interviewees to report another act/activity/detail, without specifying what information is required.

   • Then what happened?

   • What else happened the night Amy got sick?

3. Open-ended depth questions: These questions request further elaboration about a pre-disclosed event/experience/detail, without specifying precisely what information is required.

   • They can target a current topic (e.g., “Tell me more about X,”)

     • What happened when you started to set the food out?

     • Tell me everything you remember about swimming in the lake.

   • They can re-introduce a previously mentioned one (e.g., “Earlier you said X. Tell me more about X”).

4. Open-ended descriptive questions: These invite elaborate detail about an object/person/location (rather than an action). These are useful for getting descriptive/contextual information, but not ideal for finding out what happened

   • Tell me about the car.

   • Tell me more about the woman.

1.2 Topic Shifts

Code the first prompt in a series of consecutive prompts with the same topic.

C

Context: prompts requesting background/descriptive information that is not specific to an episode of abuse or about the generic abuse script (see Note 5.1)

• Suspect: facts about the suspect (name, age, occupation, height, skin colour)

• People: facts about any other relevant people

• Location: facts about locations (e.g., layout of house, child’s address at the time)

• Time: temporally relevant facts (e.g., what classroom/term the child was in at the time)

• Contact: how the child and suspect came to know each other, how often child and suspect meet

(BUT note that these details can be episodic if the interviewer is attempting to particularise a specific occurrence; e.g., “what year were you in the time it happened in the back garden?”). 

RFI

‘Request for information’: prompts requesting specific remembered details surrounding abusive acts

• Suspect: physical description (not usually relevant for known suspects like family members, teachers)

• People: any other relevant people present

• Location

• Clothes

• Words: gist of conversations

• Object

• Timeframe: prompts used to narrow down the timeframe of abuse (time of day/month/year)

• Time: other temporal details

• Disclosure: details about prior disclosures of the abuse (including disclosure time, circumstances, recipients, potential discussions of the event, and reactions to disclosure by both the child and recipients)

• Action: questions about actions that occurred (what people did)

• Gap: other prompts requesting new details (see Note 5.2). These include questions about reasons, causes, evaluations.

ACT

Details that are central to, and delineate the structure of, the abusive act.

• Action: seeking details explaining the overall actions that happened during the abuse (e.g., “What did he do?”)
• Body: movement and positioning of victim/suspect body parts
• Clothes: placement and removal (establishing whether skin-to-skin contact occurred)
• Subjective: victim’s thoughts and emotions
• Sensations: victim’s physical sensations (pain)
• Perspective: what the victim could see or hear
• Face: suspect’s facial expression
• Object: movement and position of objects used by suspect
• Injury: injuries resulting from the abusive act
• Words: gist of conversations during abuse
• Tone: tone of suspect’s words
• Duration: duration of abusive act

1.3 Event Shifts

E

This code is used to signal the start of the phase of the interview discussing a particular occurrence of abuse or the generic script of the abuse.

• Event number (1,2,3…): corresponds to the order in which the event is raised during the interview (not related to the labels used, e.g., first time)

• Generic: prompts from the interviewer seeking to elicit information about generalities/commonalities across occurrences (e.g., what usually happens)

• Ambiguous: use when it is unclear if the interviewer aims to elicit specific/episodic or generic details. This usually applies when the child has provided cues to suggest repeated abuse but the interviewer’s prompts are in past tense. This can also apply when the child has only mentioned one occurrence so far but the interviewer’s prompts are in timeless present tense.

This code applies to the first information-seeking prompt about the particular occurrence/generic script that the child responds to with forensically relevant details about that particular occurrence/generic script.

1.4 Repeated Abuse Prompts

Prompt

Interviewer prompts to determine whether >1 event occurred:

1. Asking whether a previously mentioned abusive act occurred on one or more occasions.

2. Establishing whether certain abusive acts occurred on the same or different occasions.

3. Asking how many times the abuse occurred.

4. Asking whether an occurrence of abuse ever occurred before the described occasion.

5. Asking whether an occurrence of abuse ever occurred since the described occasion.

6. Asking whether the described occasion was the only time it occurred.

7. Clarifying the child’s previous response suggesting repeated abuse (only applies when 1.-6. do not apply).

Time

Interviewer prompts to focus on eliciting episodic detail about a particular occurrence:

1. Using the term “first time.”

2. Using the term “last time.”

3. Using a label previously provided by the child.

4. Using the terms “another time,” “other time,” “different time.”

5. Using the term “remember best.”

6. Using the term “one time,” “a time,” “any time.”

7. Using the term “that time” in reference to the label raised by the child.

8. Using the term “next time.”

9. Using terms that suggest episodic details “did it ever happen on a birthday”

This code does not apply to subsequent prompts in a series of consecutive prompts about a particular time. In other words, this code only applies when the interviewer is trying to transition into a discussion of a particular occurrence.

Difference

Interviewer prompts about differences among/between events:

1. Any differences across events?

2. Specific detail same or different across events?

3. During which event did a specific detail occur?

Similarity

Interviewer prompts about similarities among/between events:

1. Were the events similar?

2. Same location?

Temporal

Interviewer prompts requesting information about when each event occurred, frequency of abuse, and the temporal relationships among events (e.g., order, gap between events). This code is only relevant for when repeated abuse has been established in the interview. For example, asking how many times the abuse occurred would be coded as temporal and not prompt>3 if the child has already disclosed multiple occurrences of abuse in the interview.

2 Child Responses

2.1 d	2.2 cue	2.3 story	2.4 ot	2.4.1 react
re1 re2 cue single ambiguous	tense optional conditional you	1 2 3	silence filler refusal idk sidetrack question repeat multiple cue	accept reject reject-l

2.1 D

Initial disclosure: the earliest point at which the child disclosed an abusive event, irrespective of whether they elaborated upon what happened (“to talk about the rude stuff”, “he touched me down there”)

• re1: Disclosure of abuse including episodic labels/details that are differentiated as different occurrences of abuse.

• re2: Disclosure that abuse has occurred a certain number of times or “more than once” without specific episodic labels/details.

• cue: Disclosure of abuse including linguistic cues (see below) suggesting that there is more than one event.

• single: Disclosure of a single episode of abuse

• ambiguous: Disclosure of abusive experience that could be a single episode or repeated

2.2 Cue

Linguistic cues from the child’s response suggesting they are recalling general script information. This code is used prior to the interviewer establishing repeated abuse (i.e., prior to any event>generic/event>number shifts).

• tense: Actions described in the timeless present tense.

• optional: Use of optional qualifiers (e.g., sometimes, or, if).

• conditional: use of conditional qualifiers (e.g., whenever)

• you: use of impersonal “you” pronoun

2.3 Story

Narrative details (see Note 5.6) provided in response to open questions (see Section 1.1).

• 1: What happened in the lead-up to the abuse? (Establishes suspect’s intent/knowledge to commit the act(s)).

• 2: What happened during the abusive act(s)? (Illegal acts of high investigative relevance).

• 3: What happened after the abuse until no other offending occurred? (Includes what made it stop and what happened after).

2.4 OT

Off-track responses are responses that do not provide the information requested by the interviewer’s prompt or do not address the issue raised by the interviewer. These are usually unproductive responses that do not confirm, deny, or provide new forensically relevant information (except for multiple & cue).

• Silence: The child does not provide a verbal or gestural response to the question.

• Filler: The child’s response is comprised of only filler words (e.g., umm, ahh).

• Refusal: The child explicitly declines to answer the interviewer’s question, such as by stating, ‘I don’t want to talk about that’ or ‘I won’t answer that.’”

• IDK: Responses that express lack of memory, knowledge, or understanding, such as ‘I don’t know,’ ‘I don’t remember,’ ‘I’m not sure,’ or ‘I don’t get what you mean.’ This also includes ‘no’ responses to yes/no questions that probe for memory or knowledge (e.g., ‘Do you remember what he was wearing?’). This does not include when the child also elaborates on their response, providing a guess about what the answer might be (e.g., When did that happen?” Child: “I don’t know, but I think it was before Christmas some time, probably around the fall”).

• Sidetrack: A response that is overtly off-topic and non-substantive, such as shifting to an unrelated topic, discussing irrelevant events, or providing irrelevant personal anecdotes.

• Question: An uninvited question posed by the child in response to the interviewer’s prompt. This includes questions that divert attention from the topic at hand, such as ‘Why do you need to know that?’ or ‘Can I go now?’ Clarification-seeking questions, rhetorical questions, or questions recounted in dialogue (e.g., ‘Then he said, “What are you doing here?”’) are excluded because they engage with the topic or provide relevant context.

• Repeat: A response that repeats information already discussed in the interview without elaborating or adding new details.

• Multiple: A response that contains details from other episodes of abuse besides the particular episode that the interviewer is asking about.

• Cue: A response that contains linguistic cues that the child is recalling generic script information when the interviewer is asking about a particular episode of abuse.

• No: The child says no when the interviewer suggests potential episodes of abuse (e.g., time>9, see 1.4.2)

React

SPECIAL (not child response) Interviewer reactions to off-track responses will be coded. The code should be applied to the interviewer’s subsequent prompt and account for all the interviewer’s reactions following the off-track response until the prompt.

Accept: The interviewer supportively acknowledges the child’s off-track response, moves on to the next logical question, adapts their approach and/or refocuses the conversation. This can include:

1. The interviewer shifts to a different topic or asks about a different aspect, signaling to the child that their off-track response is acceptable.

2. The interviewer simplifies or reframes the question, making it easier for the child to respond.

   • Interviewer: “Has it happened many times?”

   • Child: “I don’t know.”

   • Interviewer: “Has it happened one time or more than one time?”

Reject: The interviewer disregards the child’s response and persists in requesting the same information.

1. Increases pressure on the child to respond: The interviewer repeats or reframes the question without adapting it meaningfully, signaling that the child is expected to provide an answer.

   • Interviewer: “Has it happened many times?”

   • Child: “I don’t know.”

   • Interviewer: “How many times has it happened?”

2. Signals dissatisfaction with the child’s off-track response

Reject-L: This is an extension of the code above. It is used when the interviewer’s reaction also includes a leading question (see Note 5.5) that introduces information the child has not mentioned previously or that implies a desired response. The question may also include other suggestive techniques, such as mentioning what the interviewer has heard from other sources.

3 Other Codes

These codes should be applied to the first relevant line in the interview.

Closure

• When the interviewer either asks “are there any other times X…” (or similar) and the child says no and no further occurrences arise, or when the interviewer begins procedural duties at the end of the interview (e.g., was everything you told me today the truth?).

Break

• Suspension in transcript (break in the recording)

Indistinct

Response/prompt is inaudible/indistinct (as noted in the transcription) and cannot be inferred based on context

• Includes issues like fault in recording or inaudible segments.

Interruption

• A situation that causes a deviation from the substantive phase of the interview while the recording continues.

• Includes situations where the interviewer proposes a break, then continues with the interview anyway.

4 Coding Rules

1. Codes should be applied under 3 columns. Column 1: Open Questions & Topic Shifts; Column 2: Event Shifts and Repeated Abuse Prompts; Column 3: Child Responses & Other Codes.

2. Codes are not mutually exclusive, >1 code can be applied at each turn (use commas to separate them when applicable).

3. If multiple sub-categories of the same code apply to a single turn, you can use this syntax code>sub-category1>sub-category2>... (e.g., cue>conditional>optional, story>1>2). The order of the sub-categories should match the order in the response/prompt.

4. Child responses to interviewer facilitators (non-suggestive words, such as ‘ok’ or ‘yes’) and minimal encouragers (see Note 5.3) that encourage them to continue an ongoing response to the previous prompt are attributed to the preceding information-seeking prompt.

5. Code the final prompt from the interviewer if more than one question is asked in a turn.

6. If it takes the interviewer multiple turns to finish asking their question, code the final turn. This can happen when the interviewer is contextualising their prompt by summarising or clarifying previously discussed information.

7. Coding ends when the interviewer either asks “are there any other times X…” (or similar) and the child says no and no further occurrences arise, or when the interviewer begins procedural duties at the end of the interview (e.g., was everything you told me today the truth?). If the interviewer returns to questioning about the abuse, continue coding.

5 Notes

Note 5.1: Context

Context prompts are usually used for requesting semantic information (“known information rather than remembered). Note that it may depend on context; if a child has only been to a house where the abuse took place one time, then a question about where the kitchen was in relation to the bedroom is episodic. This also applies when talking about a house the child used to live in. But, if the interviewer and child are talking about the child’s current home, this is not a memory, and so it is context.

A quick rule (keeping in mind that quick rules are not always perfect): Ask yourself two questions: 1) Is the prompt about act(s) of abuse [including particularising detail about when and where]?  If NO (but still relevant to the abuse), it’s probably contextual.

Note 5.2: Clarification-/Confirmation-Seeking Prompts

Clarification-seeking prompts do not seek new information but instead clarify details already shared by the child (e.g., clarifying inconsistencies and vagueness in the child’s account)

• When you say your brother, which brother is that?

• You heard him say that?

Confirmation-seeking yes/no questions are used by many interviewers in the sample to summarise what the child has said and allow the child to check the interviewer’s recall for accuracy. These questions do not move the interview forward, as they reflect back on information previously provided by the child without seeking additional forensically relevant information.

• These questions are often used (a) near the end of the interview, (b) right before transitioning to a different topic, and (c) to bring up information previously provided by the child in order to formulate the next question in a logical manner.

In contrast, information-seeking prompts aim to gather new details that expand the narrative.

• You said that dad drinks. Had dad been drinking that night?

• How did you know he drank that night?

Note 5.3: Minimal Encouragers

Minimal encouragers signal to a speaker that they are being listened to and understood without breaking the interviewee’s train of thought. Minimal encouragers can be verbal (e.g., saying ‘uh huh’, ‘Mhmm’, repeating a few words the interviewee said) or non- verbal (e.g., head nodding).

• Child: He gave me his number. Interviewer: Uh-huh.

• Child: We went in the shed. Interviewer: In the shed? Child: Yeah, and I sat on the couch and then he got the pictures.

Note 5.4: Helpful Tips

1. Requesting precision doesn’t make a question specific. Asking someone to be precise (e.g., “Tell me exactly what happened”) doesn’t make a question specific. Consideration must be given to whether the question dictates what information is being requested.

2. Requesting someone to be elaborate doesn’t make a question open-ended. Asking someone to be elaborate (e.g., “Tell me everything you can remember about the colour of his tie”) doesn’t make a question open. Consideration must be given to whether the question dictates what information is being requested.

3. The words ‘Tell’, ‘Explain’, and ‘Describe’ do not make questions open-ended. When deciding if a question is open-ended or specific, don’t focus on key words, but rather, whether the question is telling the interviewee what precise details the interviewer is looking for. (E.g., “Tell me what you won your gold medal for?”)

4. Focus on the structure of the question, not the response it elicits. Sometimes interviewers try to soften an open-ended question with the phrases, ‘Can you …’, ‘Are you able to tell me …’, and ‘Do you know/remember …’ to make it sound more polite. Although they may intend to invite an elaborate response (and many interviewees will interpret them that way), they allow for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.

Note 5.5: Leading Questions

Leading questions presume or raise an aspect or detail that hasn’t already been mentioned by the child or established to be true.

• May or may not pressure the child to agree (“… right?”)

• Often suggest that a particular response is expected (e.g., “Joe hit you, didn’t he?”)

Others presume one or more details and ask the interviewee to talk about them without checking first whether they happened (e.g., “Tell me about Susan’s dog” when it hasn’t been established that Susan had a dog). A simple yes/no or forced-choice questions is leading if it raises a highly specific detail, an issue of contention or narrows response options, irrespective of whether the interviewee is given the option to reject suggested details.

Quick rule: If the question contains words, terminology, events or details that haven’t been mentioned by the child, the question can be classified as leading.

Note 5.6: Narrative Details

Child responses can be broken down into propositions (see prior studies of narrative development; e.g., Fivush et al., 1995, Principe et al., 2013). A proposition is a subject + verb construction. Sometimes a proposition can have more than one subject (“Dad and I had dinner”) or more than one verb (“I left and went to the bathroom”). A narrative detail will be defined as a proposition that answers the open-ended question and that does not repeat information from the question or the immediately previous child response.