Abstract
Child eyewitnesses frequently navigate forensic and judicial systems while experiencing acute stress or chronic trauma, which can compromise cognitive retrieval and elevate susceptibility to suggestive questioning. This study evaluated the empirical efficacy of a Trauma-Informed Interviewing Protocol (TIIP) compared to a standard semi-structured forensic protocol (adapted from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] guidelines) on child eyewitness recall accuracy, detail quantity, and suggestibility. A diverse cohort of children aged 6 to 11 years (N = 136) witnessed a standardized, emotionally evocative staged event and were subsequently interviewed by either trained forensic interviewers alone or forensic interviewers paired with Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) trained in trauma-informed scaffolding. Outcome metrics included total correct informational units, commission errors, confabulations, and resistance to misleading cross-examination-style prompts. The findings demonstrated that children interviewed under the TIIP produced significantly higher proportions of accurate central details and demonstrated greater resistance to misleading questions without inflating confabulation rates. Furthermore, the collaborative presence of CASAs trained in trauma-informed de-escalation significantly moderated interview-related distress, leading to enhanced narrative productivity among trauma-exposed participants. These findings offer critical evidentiary support for integrating neurobiologically informed trauma principles into forensic investigative interviewing and legal advocacy practices.
