Eliciting best evidence from autistic interviewees

Studies compared autistic and non-autistic adults (matched on age and IQ) on applied memory tasks under different retrieval support conditions. Sample sizes were determined by a-priori sample size calculations (assuming α =.05), in order to achieve Cohen's (1992) recommended power of .80 to detect a medium-to-large effect.

Study 1 tested the efficacy of a novel 'Witness-Aimed First Account' (WAFA) interview technique, compared to a control ABE interview. In WAFA interviews, the witness is first asked to briefly segment the event into its main constituent parts (which are then displayed on post-it notes), before freely recalling each of the segments in turn in as much detail as possible (followed by TED questions). 

Study 2 tested how individual questions could be adapted to elicit more detailed yet relevant accounts from autistic witnesses. Participants were questioned about specific instances from their past, with: (1) open questions; (2) cueing with general autobiographical information before asking for specific details; (3) Visual-Verbal prompting, involving a visual pie-diagram with prompts to recall when, who, what and where. Half of participants also received preparatory information which included the question topics.  

Study 3 tested autistic eyewitnesses' metacognitive monitoring and informativeness-accuracy decision making in their recall (i.e., monitoring the accuracy of one's memory and making accuracy-informativeness trade off decisions in deciding whether to report information at the fine- or coarse-grained level). The study tested: a) the impact of instructions to maximise accuracy vs. informativeness, and b) the effect of answering questions socially vs. online on the informativeness and accuracy of testimony.