Children, assessments and computer-assisted interviewing

Children, Assessments and Computer-Assisted Interviewing 407

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 14: 407–414 (2005)Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 17 October 2005

∗ Correspondence to: Peter Connolly, Social Work Department, Floor 7, TaysideHouse, Dundee DD1 3RN, UK. Tel: 01382 433419. Fax: 01382 433012. E-mail:[email protected]

Child Abuse Review Vol. 14: 407–414 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/car.922

Children,Assessments andComputer-AssistedInterviewing

T his short report is based on the findings of a researchproject (Connolly, 1998) and related literature (Reich

et al., 1995; Jones and McMahon, 1994; Faller and DeVoe,1995; Selby and Jones, 1996; Swettenham, 1996). The mainassumption tested during the research project, supported byrelevant literature, was that a computer-based assessmenttool could help facilitate communication with children, whilecollecting information in a manner that was more enjoyablefor them. It was assumed that a computer-assisted interviewmight help to reduce the level of anxiety experienced bychildren during a face-to-face interview with a clinician. Theoverriding aim of the study was to help children make amore effective contribution to an assessment about theirown emotional health and wellbeing.

Three Key Points: Children, TheirContributions and the Role of Computers

The research project (Connolly, 1998) was founded uponthree key points:

• Most children like using computers and regularly use themin their homes, schools and communities. They are usingcomputers increasingly to communicate with others via theinternet and through email (Hughes, 1990).

• Children have a right to be heard and to contribute to assess-ments which concern their lives, emotional health and gen-eral welfare. Children’s views should be taken seriously, asthese views can provide unique and vital information abouttheir lives and feelings (John, 1996; Davie et al., 1996; Davieand Galloway, 1996).

ShortReport

Peter Connolly*Social Work DepartmentDundee City Council, UK

‘Overriding aim ofthe study was tohelp children makea more effectivecontribution to anassessment’

408 Connolly

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 14: 407–414 (2005)

• Computer-based interviewing with children is an aspectof practice which is attracting increasing interest and thereare a number of studies which have looked at this approach(Reich et al., 1995; Faller and DeVoe, 1995; Jones andMcMahon, 1994; Selby and Jones, 1996; Powell and Wilson,2004).

On the basis of these points, the research attempted tocompare the effectiveness of a computer-assisted interviewwith a traditional, face-to-face direct interview.

Methodology

Twenty-five children, aged between 8 and 12 years, were in-terviewed by the same clinician on two separate occasions. Interms of gender, there were 17 boys and eight girls. All of theinterviews took place within the same room, located in a childand family psychiatry clinic. The interviews involved childrenwho had been referred to the clinic and who agreed to partici-pate in the study. The main presenting problems for thesereferrals were a range of emotional and behavioural difficul-ties identified by an adult, normally a parent, who had dis-cussed these concerns with the child’s GP. One of the mainthemes identified was the children’s reactions to loss and sepa-ration, often caused by parental separation or bereavement.The children all participated in two interview sessions, whichtook place between 1 week and 10 days part and with eachsession lasting 40 minutes. For all of the children involved, thiswas the first time that they had attended the clinic and takenpart in this type of assessment interview.

Alternative methodologies were considered but a cleardecision was made to use an experimental approach to try tocompare the process and outcomes of the two methods ofinterviewing. The design of the methodology tried to create andmaintain as much consistency and structure as possible, interms of the structure and process of the interview sessions andthe assessment schedule used. For the purpose of the researchproject, the children were randomly divided into two groups,defined only by the method of interviewing used: computer-assisted or face-to-face. Before the first interview, all of thechildren completed a short questionnaire asking them abouttheir attitudes and previous experience of using computers.

All of the interviews started with a clear explanation of thepurpose of the interview and the research and followed a semi-structured pattern provided by the interviewing schedule. Bothversions of the semi-structured interview schedule consistedof three sections: warm-up (rapport-building), issue/problem

‘To compare theeffectiveness of acomputer-assistedinterview witha traditional,face-to-facedirect interview’

‘Before the firstinterview, all ofthe childrencompleted a shortquestionnaire’



identification and issue/problem clarification. The third sec-tion was used as the main focus of the second interview ses-sions with each child. All of the second interview sessionsstarted with a game, either computer-based or a board game,which was determined by the interview approach used. Thesesessions focused on the issues which the child had identifiedas being a problem or concern during the first session. Thecomputer version of the interviewing schedule used a softwareprogramme named InterView, described as ‘a generic inter-view manager’ (Gregor, 1991).

The 25 children who took part in the research were broadlyrepresentative, in respect of age and gender distribution, of thereferrals received and assessed by the child psychiatry clinicconcerned. In terms of the children’s previous experience ofusing computers, two well-matched groups emerged, withboth groups having a similar number of children who had useda computer before or had limited experience of computers.

Data were collected about different aspects of the interviewprocess, including:

(i) The quantity and range of information recorded during theinterviews

(ii) The extent of agreement between the child and his par-ents/guardians

(iii) The children’s views of their interviews(iv) Observations made about each child who was interviewed

Findings

A count was made of the number of statements recorded dur-ing interviews, a statement being defined as a single piece ofinformation supplied by the child. It was found that the face-to-face interviews elicited and recorded more statements inresponse to the warm-up sequence of questions. There was,however, no difference in the number of problems/concernsidentified and recorded between the two interviewing meth-ods. This is illustrated in Table 1.

The average score recorded by the computer-based versionwas slightly lower because it included two unusually lowscores of 8 and 10. The third lowest score recorded using this

Table 1. Number of problems/concerns identified by different interviewing methods

Problem score range Average problem score

All 25 children 8–55 37Computerized version 8–55 36Pen/paper version 27–52 37

‘Two well-matchedgroups emerged’

‘No differencein the numberof problems/concerns identifiedand recordedbetween the twointerviewingmethods’

410 Connolly


version was 27, which was the same as the lowest scorerecorded with the pen and paper version.

During the children’s second interviews, negotiation tookplace about the number of problems they were willing todiscuss. The problems they had identified during their firstinterviews were suggested, along with other problems identi-fied by parents/carers. On average, fewer problems were dis-cussed when the computer-based version of the schedule wasused. This finding was considered further by comparing thenumber of problems identified by the children during their firstinterviews with the number they were willing to discuss dur-ing their second interviews. The finding suggests that slightlyfewer problems were discussed in the second interviews inrelation to the number of problems identified by children dur-ing their first interviews when the computer-based version ofthe interviewing schedule was used.

A count was made of the number of statements recordedwhen problems were discussed during these second interviews.When a problem was selected for discussion, two or three fur-ther questions were asked, with the aim of trying to explorethe child’s perception of the particular problem or concern.Therefore, the number of statements recorded had a directrelationship to the number of problems that a child agreed todiscuss. The face-to-face interviews produced more statementsper problem discussed and these statements were judged asbeing more spontaneous and imaginative, with children. Thisjudgement was made by other clinicians who were asked tocomment on each child’s contribution to the initial clinic-based assessment.

Child–Parent Agreement

The problems identified as being significant by each child werecompared with the problems the child’s parent/guardian iden-tified as being an issue. A comparison was made to see if theinterviewing approach used had resulted in differences in theextent of agreement between a child and their parent/guard-ian. There was a wide divergence between the responses of thechildren interviewed and those of their parents, but the typeof interviewing method used was not judged to have affectedthis difference.

Children’s Self-Evaluations of their Interviews

Self-evaluation forms were completed by all 25 children.These forms contained nine closed questions: six relating tothe interviews and three about attending the clinic. Two open

‘The face-to-faceinterviewsproduced morestatements perproblem discussed’



questions asked what had been the ‘best’ part of the interviewsand what had been the ‘hardest’. The interviewing methodused was not found to have been a decisive factor in how thesechildren evaluated their experience of being interviewed orhow they felt about attending the clinic.

Observations Made of the Children Interviewed

Structured observation forms were completed by several cli-nicians following the second interviews. The observations werea subjective assessment of how worried or relaxed a child ap-peared about coming to the clinic and taking part in interviews.The other clinicians were asked specific questions about thechild’s attitude and behaviour. These observations were madeby a clinician whose specific role was to support children andtheir families within the clinic’s waiting-room. Other obser-vations were made by clinicians who were involved in inter-viewing the child along with other members of his/her family.

Observations about a child’s confidence to read, understandquestions and maintain concentration throughout both inter-views and his/her ability to talk with ease about himself, his/her difficulties and his/her feelings were made by the practi-tioner–researcher who conducted all of the interviews.

The type of interviewing method used was not found to havebeen a significant factor, rather each child’s feelings and un-derstanding about why they were attending the clinic appearedto have had a greater impact on their behaviour and level ofconfidence within the clinic and during interviews.

Conclusions

It was concluded that computer-assisted interviewing did nothave the effect predicted, in that:

• It was not found to have captured or recorded moreinformation

• There was no major difference in how the two groups ratedtheir problems

In comparison, the direct (face-to-face) interviewing method:

• Elicited more statements• Encouraged more problems to be selected for further dis-

cussion during the second interviews• Captured and recorded a wider range of spontaneous and

imaginative responses from the children about their livesand concerns

‘Not found to havebeen a decisivefactor in how thesechildren evaluatedtheir experience’

‘Each child’sfeelings andunderstandingabout why theywere attendingthe clinic’

412 Connolly


It is suggested that the children’s perceived and expressedlevel of anxiety was affected more by their familiarity with theinterview setting and their ability to cope with the demands ofthe interviews than by the interviewing approach used. So, howa child felt about being interviewed and attending the childpsychiatry clinic may have been a more influential factor thanthe interviewing method used.

The recognized fact that most children like using com-puters does not necessarily mean that a computer-assistedmethod of interviewing provides a more effective approachwith children. It appears that a range of factors, includingthe interviewing method used, can affect the process and out-comes of these type of assessment interviews with children. Itis possible that computer-based assessment tools, when intro-duced into a face-to-face interaction, may actually add to thecomplexity of this interaction. Some children may feel moreinhibited about discussing sensitive issues and talking abouttheir feelings when that process involves negotiating the inputof that information into a computer-based programme. Itmay also be that this type of computer-focused and restrictedprocess can limit the type of spontaneous responses that a childcan provide.

It is recognized that children normally need time to estab-lish a sense of trust and rapport before being asked to discussor provide personal and potentially sensitive information aboutthemselves (Angold, 1994). Computer-based games and ques-tionnaires can be used to help build rapport, but they do notreplace the need for direct communication with professionals.Adults who interview children need to be well trained in theart of communicating with children, particularly in situationswhere children are being asked about issues which they mayfind difficult to discuss.

Other evidence suggests that the reported strengths of di-rect computer interviewing may be attributable to its capacityto reduce or exclude direct human contact rather than to fac-tors inherent within the computerized interview itself (Greist,1984; Millstein, 1987). Computers running well-designed,child-friendly software have been used to collect informationwhich might have been difficult to discuss with a previouslyunknown professional in an unfamiliar setting. So, the strengthof a computer-based tool might be that it can reduce socialinhibitions, along with other factors which affect human-to-human interaction and communication. Assessment toolsadapted for use in this way may well provide space for reflec-tion and clearer thinking about specific issues, dependingon the age, maturity and cognitive development of the childor young person involved. A computer-based questionnaire

‘Perceived andexpressed level ofanxiety wasaffected more bytheir familiaritywith the interviewsetting and theirability to cope’

‘Can be usedto help buildrapport, but theydo not replace theneed for directcommunicationwith professionals’



might therefore be a helpful pre-interview activity for a childor young person before they are interviewed directly by aclinician. This might be particularly relevant for teenagers, whomight feel more inhibited and reluctant to discuss personalissues with a previously unknown adult.

A task still requiring further exploration is to identifysituations where computer-based programmes can best beused to collect information and opinions from children. Itis important that this is done in a way that empowers part-icipants, giving them control and choices about what informa-tion is collected and how it is used and shared.

Acknowledgements

The research project cited in this report was carried outunder the supervision of Professor Bryan Williams (Depart-ment of Social Work), Dr Norman Alm and Dr Peter Gregor(Applied Computer Department), University of Dundee. Theauthor was employed as a social worker clinician within theTayside Child and Family Psychiatry Service at the time.

References

Angold A. 1994. Clinical interviewing with children and adolescents.In Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Modern Approaches, Rutter M,Taylor E, Hersov L (eds). Blackwell Scientific Publications: London.

Connolly P. 1998. An evaluation of the use of computers when interview-ing children. MPhil Thesis, University of Dundee.

Davie R, Galloway D (eds). 1996. Listening to Children in Education.Fulton: London.

Davie R, Upton G, Varma V (eds). 1996. The Voice of the Child: A hand-book for Professionals. Falmer: London.

Faller K, DeVoe E. 1995. Final Report: Computer Assisted Interviewingof Children who may have been Sexually Abused. School of SocialWork: University of Michigan, USA.

Gregor P. 1991. Computer-based interviewing: steps towards thedevelopment of a generic system for serious and sensitive information.PhD Thesis, University of Dundee.

Greist JH. 1984. Conservative radicalism: an approach to computersin mental health. In Using Computers in Clinical Practice, Schwartz M(ed.). Haworth: New York; 191–194.

Hughes M. 1990. Children’s computation. In Understanding Children,Grieve R, Hughes M (eds). Blackwell: Oxford.

John M (ed.). 1996. Children in Charge: The Child’s Right to a FairHearing. Jessica Kingsley: London.

Jones A, McMahon H. 1994. The use of the computer as a thera-peutic tool for children. In Group and Interactive Learning, Foot HC,Howe CJ, Anderson A, Tolmie AK, Warden DA (eds). ComputationalMechanics Publications: Southampton; 87–92.

‘Might beparticularlyrelevant forteenagers’

‘Important thatthis is done in away that empowersparticipants’

414 Connolly


Millstein SG. 1987. Acceptability and reliability of sensitive informa-tion collected via computer interview. Educational & PsychologicalMeasurement 47: 523–533.

Powell MB, Wilson CJ. 2004. ‘Marvin the mouse’; can he assist policeto elicit evidence from young children? Policy and Practice Research5: 3.

Reich W, Cottler L, Macallum K, Corwin D, Van Eerdewegh M. 1995.Computerised interviews as a method of assessing psychopathologyin children. Comprehensive Psychiatry 36: 40–45.

Selby C, Jones A. 1996. Using Bubble Dialogue to Investigate Com-munication and Expression in School Children. CALRAG Report 154.Open University: Milton Keynes.

Swettenham J. 1996. Can children with autism be taught to under-stand false belief using computers? Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry 37: 17–165.

Children, assessments and computer-assisted interviewing

Documents

Transcript of Children, assessments and computer-assisted interviewing