1 / 12

Evaluating Interview Skills: Self-Assessment in Investigative Practices Post-PEACE Training

This study investigates how investigators evaluate their own interview skills following the PEACE (Preparation, Engage, Account, Closure, Evaluation) framework. Despite improvements in certain interviewing areas since its implementation, challenges persist regarding sustained performance. Factors such as self-awareness, supervision, and understanding of effective interviewing are explored. The research involved assessments from the investigators themselves and external experts, highlighting the importance of self-evaluation in enhancing investigative interviews and addressing performance gaps.

lapis
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating Interview Skills: Self-Assessment in Investigative Practices Post-PEACE Training

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dave Walsh & Mick King, University of Derby, UK. Getting better all the time?

  2. Aim of study: To examine how well investigators evaluate their own interview skills Post-PEACE: (some) areas of interviewing have improved (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Griffiths & Milne, 2006; Griffiths, 2008; Leahy-Harland, 2011; Soukara, Bull, Turner, Vrij, & Cherryman, 2009; Shawyer, 2009; Walsh & Bull, 2010; 2012; Walsh & Milne, 2008) iNTRODUCTION

  3. Problems with…. • Training alone will not lead to sustained improved performance(Holton, Bates, Seyler, & Carvalho, 1997; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Yammill & Mclean, 2001). • with supervision (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Stockdale, 1993; Walsh & Milne, 2007) • expectations after training (Shepherd & Griffiths, 2013) • understanding what is good interviewing (Cherryman, 2000; Walsh & Bull, 2011) Reasons for continuing indifference in performance

  4. Self evaluation involves “a high level of self-awareness and the ability to monitor one’s own learning and performance” (Cassidy, 2006, p. 170). Highly demanding skill (Argyris & Schön; 1978) Persistence in undertaking the task enables effective self-evaluation (Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001; Stefani, 1998) and perceptions of improved performance (Walsh & Milne, 2007) Importance of self –evaluation

  5. Investigators from GLA – entire investigation personnel Undertook a training exercise involving a simulated interview Measured for skill levels using an assessment scale (46 dimensions) – evolved from Bull & Cherryman, 1995; Clarke & Milne, 2001; Griffiths, 2008; Walsh & Bull, 2010; Walsh & Milne, 2008) Dichotomous - and Likert scales; 1 – poor , 5 – highly skilled Overall interviewing skill Methodology

  6. By participants themselves at end of training from video-taped recording • By researchers after training from video-taped recording • Between researchers to ensure inter-rater reliability Stages of measurement

  7. Between experts Assessor 2 examined 50% of Assessor 1’s sample (N=9) All correlations significant (where p = ≤.01) at ≥ .82 except ‘Overall interview’ score; 0.64, p = <0.05. Inter-rater scores

  8. Between expert and investigator (self –assessed) • Correlations significant • Appropriate structure 0.71, p= <0.01 • Topic development (0.49), Points to prove (0.54), Conversation management (0.59), Cognitive interview (0.49), Intermittent summaries (0.46)- all significant; p = <0.05 • All other correlations (inc. ‘overall assessment) scored no more than 0.22, all being n.s., except ‘Self confidence’; 0.45,n.s. Inter-rater scores

  9. Mean score (N=18) • Self assessment Expert assessment • Planning/preparation 3.63 (0.65) 3.39 (0.61) • Caution delivery * 4.59 (0.58) 4.06 (0.87) • Checks understanding of caution ** 4.27 (0.76) 2.72(1.18) • Explains interview purpose** 3.68 (1.16) 2.50 (0.99) • Opportunity to provide account explanation** 3.27 (1.47) 1.17 (0.39) • Rapport* 3.82 (1.84) 3.11(1.24) • Deals with lack of co-operation** 3.86 (0.70) 2.61 (0.78) • Appropriate interview structure** 4.05 (0.83) 3.17 (0.99) • Encourages comprehensive account** 3.96 (0.57) 3.06 (0.94) • Provides appropriate questioning strategy** 3.73 (0.76) 2.78 (0.88) • Provides periodic summaries and linkages ** 3.36 (1.08) 1.56 (0.62) • Examines points to prove and defences 3.23 (1.05) 2.83 (0.79) • Explores information received* 3.69 (0.77) 3.00 (1.14) • Identifies and tests inconsistences * 3.27 (1.15) 2.56(0.52) • Challenges appropriately** 2.77 (1.33) 2.17(0.38) • Explores intent and motive** 2.59 (1.21) 1.33 (0.59) • Uses pauses** 2.95 (1.24) 1.28 (0.67) • Conversation management* 3.67(1.08) 3.06(0.54) • Cognitive interview skill** 2.83 (1.84) 1.17 (0.38) • Self confidence 4.00 (0.81) 3.78 (0.55) • Open mindedness 3.87 (0.88) 3.56 (0.78) • Flexibility** 3.91 (0.91) 2.94 (0.64) • Communication skills ** 4.05 (0.78) 3.33 (0.49) • Active listening** 3.83 (0.62) 3.11 (0.76) • Advises what happens next * 2.27 (1.67) 1.39 (o.70) • Provides final summary* 2.55 (1.52) 1.61 (0.98) • Overall assessment * 3.46 (0.67) 2.71(0.68)*** • Ratings significant **p ≤0.01; *p ≤0.05 • *** both assessors scores skill levels –self assessed v. expert

  10. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test resultsz r • Planning/preparation 1.73 0.29 • Caution delivery* 2.00 0.33 • Checks understanding of caution** 3.09 0.52 • Explains interview purpose** 2.55 0.43 • Opportunity to provide account explanation** 3.23 0.54 • Rapport* 2.00 0.33 • Deals with lack of co-operation** 3.18 0.53 • Appropriate interview structure** 3.31 0.55 • Encourages comprehensive account** 3.00 0.50 • Provides appropriate questioning strategy** 2.00 0.33 • Provides periodic summaries and linkages **3.57 0.60 • Examines points to prove and defences 1.54 0.26 • Explores information received * 2.12 0.35 • Identifies and tests inconsistences* 2.32 0.39 • Challenges appropriately** 2.63 0.44 • Explores intent and motive** 2.85 0.48 • Uses pauses** 3.04 0.51 • Conversation management* 2.31 0.39 • Cognitive interview skill** 3.58 0.60 • Self confidence 1.15 0.19 • Open mindedness 1.13 0.19 • Flexibility** 2.93 0.48 • Communication skills** 2.48 0.41 • Active listening** 2.67 0.45 • Advises what happens next* 1.61 0.27 • Provides final summary* 1.90 0.32 • Overall assessment * 1.50 0.25 • Ratings significant **p ≤0.01; *p ≤0.05 skill levels –self assessed v. expert

  11. Investigators seemingly tend to self-enhance Exaggerated scores after training Some tend to be overly self-critical Few accurate self-assessments Self-evaluation as a basis for self-improvement? Implications for prActice

  12. Investigators submitted 2000 word reflective self- assessments To be compared to their/our rating scales Interview skills to be measured again 12 months after training from field interviews Also questionnaire relating to self-evaluation task Is there improvement/deterioration/maintenance in performance levels Is there any association between performance (improved/deteriorated/maintained) levels and self-reports of undertaking self-evaluation task future developments

More Related