REVIEW

Interviewing witnesses with

learning disabilities for
legal purposes
Rebecca Milne, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth,
Hampshire PO1 2DY, UK and Ray Bull Department of Psychology, University of
Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO1 2DY, UK

Summary The present paper gives an overview of the research literature examining how best to
obtain the maximum quality and quantity of information from people with learning
disabilities (LDs) in a non-biasing manner. First, the authors outline the research
concerning the memory performance of people with LDs and then they go on to
describe the specific strategies which have been recommended for use with this
group. The relative merits of different types of questions are examined. It is argued
that the main difficulty in interviewing people with LDs concerns errors of omission
and that research should find ways to enhance recall, especially since detail is the
currency of both the criminal and civil justice systems. One such method that has been
found to gain greater recall is the cognitive interview. The paper finishes by briefly
describing this technique and its efficacy for use with vulnerable groups.
Keywords Cognitive interview, crime, learning disability, questioning, victims, witnesses

Introduction
Many people with learning disabilities (LDs) live indepen-
dently in the community as a result of changes in social care
policies (e.g. NHS and Community Care Act 1990; Kebbell &
Hatton 1999) and the group as a whole is becoming more
visible. Unfortunately, because of their vulnerability, people
with LDs are often victims of crime (see Mencap 1999),
perhaps because perpetrators perceive members of these
populations as less able to report an offence, reducing their
fear of retribution (Endicott 1992). Furthermore, people with
LDs are often the only witnesses to crimes against other
people with LDs, such as other residents in a group home
(Sanders et al. 1997), and may live in socially disadvantaged
areas with high crime rates (Kebbell & Hatton 1999). Society
has a responsibility to investigate such matters (Bull 1995,
1999). Nevertheless, it has been argued that people with LDs
are those most often denied access to the criminal justice
system (Milne 1999).
Historically, justice systems, and particularly the criminal
justice system, have regarded people with LDs as unreliable
witnesses. It has been believed that their memory systems are
inherently defective, and therefore, it has been assumed that
they are susceptible to suggestion and lack the skills accu-
rately to report events (Perlman et al. 1994). Indeed, Endicott
(1992) noted in a technical report to the Canadian Depart-
ment of Justice that:
‘. . .[T]he law has traditionally concentrated on ways to
establish formally the things that a person with disabil-
ity cannot do. All too often a person’s perceived inability
to do some things is translated by legal processes into a
finding of inability to do anything. The law has not demon-
strated much capacity to find ways in which the person’s
special needs can be accommodated so that he or she can
participate in ordinary human activities, including the
activity of doing justice in society.’ (Endicott 1992, p. 5)
There is an urgent need for research into the validity of
these perceptions and it is important to determine whether,
and in what situations, people with LDs can be considered
reliable witnesses (Perlman et al. 1994).

# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 93–97 93
94 R. Milne and R. Bull
Memory performance and people
with learning disabilities
Psychologists make a three-part distinction when discussing
the processes underlying memory, depending on the phase
of memory being referred to. Encoding concerns the process
through which information is entered into memory. A phy-
sical input, such as the appearance of a perpetrator, is
transformed into a representation received into memory.
The perpetrator’s appearance that has just been encoded is
stored in memory. At interview, a few hours or days later, an
interviewee may need to describe the perpetrator, so she or
he attempts to retrieve this information (Milne & Bull 1999).
Recalling information (i.e. remembering) can often be
difficult for people with LDs because they tend to take longer
to encode, understand and store information than their peers
in the general population. As a consequence, their free recall
is often incomplete (Bull 1995; Milne & Bull 1999). However,
the information that is reported is not necessarily less accu-
rate (Bull 1995, 1999). The limited research to date does not
suggest that people with LDs are more likely to fabricate
or distort information (i.e. make errors of commission;
Gudjonsson & Clare 1995), as long as they are interviewed
appropriately. Instead, it is the recall of detail that is parti-
cularly problematic for this population (i.e. errors of omission;
Sanders et al. 1997; Milne et al. 1999).
In addition to possibly less efficient encoding, it is the acces-
sibility of information which may be more limited in people
with LDs. In other words, forgetting may be more often caused
by having problems retrieving information, as opposed to
the information being lost altogether. These difficulties may
be also exacerbated by limited communication skills.
Problems in accessibility suggest that information which is
initially irretrievable could be elicited through the use of
appropriate cues and prompts (e.g. Winters & Semchuk 1986).
Therefore, interviewing techniques which aid communica-
tion and aim to assist memory using non-biasing retrieval
strategies should enhance recall. In addition, questioning is
required to elaborate upon adults with LDs’ often skeletal
free narratives to elicit specific detail for legal purposes (Bull
1995, 1999). What questioning techniques should be used?
It is this question to which the present authors now turn.
Questioning
In general, questions should be kept as simple and concrete
as possible, and abstract concepts and double negatives
should not be used (Perlman et al. 1997; Bull 1999). As stated
by people with LDs themselves, ‘Law people . . . don’t
[shouldn’t] use big words, police should keep things simple’
(Brennan & Brennan 1994, p. 143). Interviewers should tailor
the lengths of their sentences to those of the interviewees and
use plain English. Furthermore, the interviewee should be
asked, where possible, to repeat back to the interviewer what
# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 93–97
was said to ensure that she or he has understood (Bull 1995,
1999).
At present, there are few experimental studies which have
examined the extent to which accurate information can be
elicited if people with LDs are questioned appropriately. The
classic work of Loftus (e.g. 1979) has demonstrated that the
particular wording of questions can affect the later recall of
an event from adults in the general population. If people with
LDs have to rely more heavily than their counterparts in the
general population on external cues to aid recall, more care
may be needed not to influence their recall by careless
interviewing techniques (Bull 1995; Milne & Bull 1999).
However, research to date has provided little clear gui-
dance about the most appropriate types of questions to use
with adults with LDs. This poses particular problems in light
of the new Youth Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in
which the interviewing of adults with LDs is to be of crucial
importance and the skills of the interviewers are to be open to
public scrutiny for the first time (Bull 1999). The Memoran-
dum of Good Practice (MOGP; Home Office 1992) for inter-
viewing children is currently being updated and extended to
include guidance for interviewing all vulnerable witnesses.
Both the original and updated versions advocate the phased
approach to interviewing and involve: (1) rapport develop-
ment, (2) free narrative, (3) questioning and (4) closure (for a
full description, see Bull 1996). However, practitioners using
this phased approach have found problems applying it for
use with children with LDs. This is because of errors of
omission, with the children’s free report often being limited
(Milne et al. a, in preparation). This provides little for the
interviewer to go on in terms of follow-up questioning (for a
more in-depth view of the criticisms of this approach for this
group of children, see Marchant & Page 1997). Since the free
narrative stage of the interview tends to contain the most
reliable information, at least from adults with LDs (88%
accuracy rate, i.e. proportion of correct recall; Milne et al.
1999), research is needed to develop ways of enhancing the
recall elicited from people with LDs in this interview phase.
What types of questions should be used? It has been found
(Heal & Sigelman 1995) that people with mild LDs are
significantly more likely than their peers to acquiesce to
closed yes/no questions, with acquiescence increasing at
the more severe levels of disability. Repeated questions
should also be avoided because an interviewee with LDs
may change her or his answer because she or he assumes that
the first response was wrong. Like their peers in the general
population, people with LDs also tend to have a last option
bias when answering forced-choice questions (Milne et al. b,
in preparation), perhaps because of a difficulty in remember-
ing the choice of replies (Prosser & Bromley 1998). There is
some evidence that either/or questions (especially pictorial
ones) elicit more reliable responses (Sigelman et al. 1981).
Even ‘short-answer’ questions (i.e. those which require a
one- or two-word answer from the interviewee) have been

found to increase incorrect responding by adults with mild
LDs (Perlman et al. 1994). The reason may be that this group
prefer to give any answer, regardless if it is the correct, rather
than admit that they ‘don’t know’. However, in contrast with
these results, Cardone & Dent (1996) found that non-leading
specific questions did not lead to a greater reporting of
inaccurate information. Indeed, these questions resulted in
more accurate information than was obtained from a ‘free
report only’ group. Nevertheless, supporting the study by
Perlman et al. (1994), Milne et al. (1999) found that it was the
questioning phase of the interview, even when containing
predominantly open-ended questions and appropriate
closed questions, which resulted in the least reliable informa-
tion (73% accuracy, 88% free report accuracy rate). Although
the data are confusing, it seems that it might be beneficial to
follow the phased approach to interviewing (as recom-
mended in the MOGP). This will provide information in a
hierarchy of reliability (Bull 1996).
All interviewees are vulnerable to suggestion (Milne &
Bull 1999), but people with LDs tend to be even more
susceptible when poorly questioned (e.g. Milne et al. 1999,
Milne et al. b, in preparation). Misleading questions had a
deleterious effect on the adults with LDs in the study by
Cardone & Dent (1996). The above authors attributed this
effect to increased susceptibility to compliance, as the inter-
viewees’ non-verbal behaviour intimated that they realized
that something was wrong with the questions. According to
many authors, the vulnerability to suggestion of people with
LDs results from a number of factors, including their sus-
ceptibility to influence by authority figures, acquiescence,
problems understanding the language used, lack of knowl-
edge of appropriate words and an inability to concentrate
(Gudjonsson 1992; Sanders & Young 1994). Therefore, this
type of question, which may prompt suggestible responding,
should be avoided as far as is possible, since information
elicited from such questions has limited evidential value.
Therefore, because the main concern is errors of omission
when adults with LDs are interviewed appropriately, mem-
ory enhancing techniques need to be developed which utilize
non-biasing retrieval mnemonics. The cognitive interview
might be one such technique which helps to overcome the
difficulties of memory accessibility among people with LDs.
Therefore, the next two sections of the present paper concern
the manner and style in which to interview.
Interviewing behaviour
Interview duration
The Canadian Law Reform Commission consultations pro-
posed that interviewers could make the process of interview-
ing less overwhelming if the interviewers just slowed down
their pace of conversation a little, and thus, lengthened
the duration of the interviews. Indeed, people with LDs
# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 93–97
Interviewing witnesses with learning disabilities 95
themselves have recommended ‘talking to you not too fast’
(Brennan & Brennan 1994, p. 143).
Interview setting
People with LDs do not always adapt well to unusual
situations, and thus, police stations and court, which are
unusual to most people, are likely to be harder to cope with
(Bull 1995). Poor adaptation has a deleterious effect on
memory and communication, and increases stress levels.
Furthermore, the interview location should be free of
distractions (Perlman et al. 1997).
Interview expectations
People with LDs may have had negative experiences in the
past regarding interviews (e.g. concerning changing resi-
dence) and may be worried that something ‘bad’ will happen
again. It is imperative to outline the reasons for the interview
and to check the interviewees’ understanding of what is
taking place (Prosser & Bromley 1998).
Rapport
Rapport is essential for a successful interview, but people
with LDs may need extra time to feel comfortable with
someone (Bull 1995; Milne 1999). Indeed, 30–40 min of rap-
port building may not be unusual (Marchant & Page 1997).
People with LDs also differ extensively from one another in
their level of social, emotional and cognitive development,
communication skills, degree of understanding and particu-
lar needs. If it has not already happened, assessment of these
skills needs to take place during this phase of the interview.
Brennan & Brennan (1994) strongly advocated that inter-
viewers should adopt an interactive model of questioning.
This requires interviewers to take on much more responsi-
bility for the acquisition of accurate information by changing
their own behaviour (verbal and non-verbal) to suit the needs
of the interviewee. In addition, Brennan & Brennan (1994)
emphasized a need to match the demands of the interview
and questioning format to the communication ability of the
interviewee. For example, people with LDs often adapt
common words and phrases, and ascribe unusual meanings
to them. Therefore, rapport can help to identify language
idiosyncrasies as well as helping the interviewer to assess
the likely competence of the witness.
Furthermore, since people with LDs often suffer high
social anxiety, low self-esteem and a lack of assertiveness,
it is even more important to put the interviewee at ease
(Perlman et al. 1997). Allowing an interviewee with LDs to
exert some control in the interview (e.g. determining breaks)
should reduce the perceived power differential between
interviewer and interviewee. This should help to create a
psychologically comfortable environment that may have
96 R. Milne and R. Bull
the added benefit of helping to reduce compliance later in
the questioning phase of the interview (Perlman et al. 1997).
Cognitive interview
The cognitive interview was developed in the USA by R. E.
Geiselman and R. P. Fisher (for a full description of the seven
phases of the cognitive interview, see Fisher & Geiselman
1992; Milne & Bull 1999), and aims to increase the quantity
and quality of recall elicited from cooperative witnesses and
victims, and possibly suspects of crime. It consists of tech-
niques to improve memory retrieval and dyadic communi-
cation. The cognitive interview has been found to increase
the recall of correct information by approximately 35–45% for
adult witnesses (for a meta-analysis, see Köhnken et al. 1999)
and is now recommended for use with children from the
age of 7 years and upwards. Since the cognitive interview
involves the use of non-biasing retrieval techniques, it should
also increase the recall of people with LDs.
In the first ever study examining the applicability of the
cognitive interview for use with adults with mild LDs
(Brown & Geiselman 1990), the cognitive interview was
found to enhance recall of correct information by 32% com-
pared with a control interview, with no significant effect
upon the number of incorrect details reported (i.e. informa-
tion discrepant with the event such as saying the car was blue
when it was brown). However, the cognitive interview was
also associated with significantly more confabulations (i.e.
details not present in the event), although the numbers were
very small. Moreover, compared with the general population
(from Geiselman et al. 1985), adults with LDs recalled less
correct information, regardless of the style of interview.
Nevertheless, the performance of the two populations was
similar in terms of the overall accuracy (i.e. the percentage
of total information reported which was correct). Unfortu-
nately, this comparison between populations needs to be
viewed very cautiously since it is based on the findings from
different studies. Subtle differences in the way in which
each study was conducted (e.g. different interviewers)
might account for the results.
Milne et al. (1999) conducted a study with 47 adults with
mild LDs attending day centres and 38 adults from the
general population who viewed a videotape recording of a
street accident. A day later, the participants were inter-
viewed using either a cognitive interview or a structured
interview (a control interview). The structured interview
was very similar to the MOGP interview described above.
Compared with their counterparts with LDs, adults from the
general population recalled more correct information, and
made fewer confabulations about persons and objects.
The type of interview had an impact. For both groups, the
cognitive interview was more effective than the structured
interview in enhancing recall [mean numbers of details:
(adults with LDs) cognitive interview ¼ 103, structured
# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 93–97
interview ¼ 72; (general population) cognitive interview ¼
201; structured interview ¼ 160]. However, for the group
with LDs, it also produced a disproportionate increase in
the reporting of person confabulations [mean number of
confabulations: (adults with LDs) cognitive interview ¼ 23,
structured interview ¼ 12; (general population) cognitive
interview ¼ 9; structured interview ¼ 8]. Nevertheless, the
accuracy ratios were similar across interview types (80%
for the cognitive interview and 82% for the structured inter-
view). Indeed, when interviewed with a cognitive interview,
some of the participants with LDs performed better than
their counterparts in the general population who were inter-
viewed with a structured interview (Milne et al. 1999).
Conboy-Hill (1998) has also conducted research on the use
of the cognitive interview with adults with LDs. In a small
scale case study, the above author found that a cognitive inter-
view again increased the reporting of correct details and also
reduced the effects of suggestion to post-interview mislead-
ing questions (for similar results with children and children
with LDs, respectively, see Milne et al. 1995, Milne et al. c, in
preparation). In addition, Conboy-Hill (1998) noted many
possible applications of the cognitive interview in LD ser-
vices; for example, around issues of consent and evaluation
of challenging behaviour (for more details, see Conboy-Hill
1998).
Conclusion
The present authors hope that this brief review will leave the
reader with the message that people with LDs, if questioned
appropriately, can produce accurate reports of events which
have occurred. Therefore, the focus should be on the abilities
of the interviewer rather than the capabilities of the inter-
viewee (Milne & Bull 1999). What is urgently needed is the
development of techniques which enhance such accounts,
particularly when detail is required. This is especially the
case now that people with LDs should be afforded greater
access to justice through the implementation of the Youth
Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The cognitive inter-
view may provide one such technique, although more
research is necessary (e.g. using live events). Research should
now also turn its attention to adults with LDs whose intel-
lectual development is very limited.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their
extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manu-
script and Isabel Clare for her invaluable assistance in the
writing of this review.
References
Brennan M. & Brennan R. (1994) Cleartalk: police responding to
intellectual disability. Wagga Wagga, School of Education, Charles
Sturt University.

Brown C.L. & Geiselman R.E. (1990) Eyewitness testimony of the
mentally retarded: effect of the cognitive interview. J Police
Criminal Psychol, 6: 14–22.
Bull R. (1995) Interviewing witnesses with communicative
disability. In: Bull R., Carson D., editors. Handbook of psychology in
legal contexts. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons: 247–60.
Bull R. (1996) Good practice from video recorded interviews with
child witnesses for use in criminal proceedings. In: Davies G.,
Lloyd-Bostock S., McMurran M., Wilson C., editors. Psychology,
law and criminal justice. Berlin, de Gruyter: 100–17.
Bull R. (1999) Questioning approach. Solicitors Journal, July: 706–7.
Cardone D. & Dent H. (1996) Memory and interrogative
suggestibility: the effects of modality of information presentation
and retrieval conditions upon the suggestibility scores of
people with learning disabilities. Legal Criminal Psychology,
1: 165–77.
Conboy-Hill S. (1998) The cognitive interview and adults with
learning disability. Masters Thesis, University of Leicester,
Leicester.
Endicott E. (1992) Technical report: the impact of bill C-15 on persons
with communication disabilities. Ottawa, Research and
Development Directorate, Department of Justice.
Fisher R.P. & Geiselman R.E. (1992) Memory-enhancing techniques for
investigative interviewing: the cognitive interview. Springfield, IL,
Charles C Thomas.
Geiselman R.E., Fisher R.P., MacKinnon D.P. & Holland H.L. (1985)
Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview:
cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. J Appl Psychology,
70: 401–12.
Gudjonsson G. (1992) The psychology of interrogations, confessions an
testimony. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
Gudjonsson G. & Clare I.C.H. (1995) The relationship between
confabulation and intellectual ability, memory, interrogative
suggestibility and acquiescence. Personality Individual Differences,
19: 333–8.
Heal L.W. & Sigelman C.K. (1995) Response biases in interviews of
individuals with limited mental ability. J Intellectual Disability Res,
39: 331–40.
Home Office and Department of Health (HODH) (1992)
Memorandum of good practice for video recorded interviews with child
witnesses for criminal proceedings. London, HMSO.
Kebbell M. & Hatton C. (1999) People with mental retardation
as witnesses in court: a review. Mental Retardation, 37: 179–87.
# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 93–97
Interviewing witnesses with learning disabilities 97
Köhnken G., Milne R., Memon A. & Bull R. (1999) The cognitive
interview: a meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime Law, 5: 3–28.
Loftus E.F. (1979) Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press.
Marchant R. & Page M. (1997) The memorandum and disabled
children. In: Westcott H., Jones J., editors. Perspectives on the
memorandum: policy, practice and research in investigative
interviewing. Aldershot, Arena, Ashgate Publishing: 67–79.
Mencap (1999) Living in fear. London, Mencap.
Milne R. (1999) Interviewing children with learning disabilities. In:
Memon A., Bull R., editors. Handbook of the psychology of
interviewing. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons: 165–80.
Milne R. & Bull R. (1999) Investigative interviewing: psychology and
practice. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
Milne R., Bull R., Köhnken G. & Memon A. (1995) The cognitive
interview and suggestibility. In: Clark N.K., Stephenson G.M.,
editors. Criminal behaviour: perceptions, attributions and rationality.
Leicester, British Psychological Society: 21–7.
Milne R., Clare I.C.H. & Bull R. (1999) Using the cognitive interview
with adults with mild learning disabilities. Psychology, Crime Law,
5: 81–101.
Perlman N.B., Ericson K.I., Esses V.M. & Isaacs B.J. (1994) The
developmentally handicapped witness: competency as a function
of question format. Law Human Behavior, 18: 171–87.
Perlman N.B., Ericson K.I. & Isaacs B.J. (1997) Young victims with
developmental disabilities. Surrey Place, Canada, Workshop
Proceedings.
Prosser H. & Bromley J. (1998) Interviewing people with intellectual
disabilities. In: Emerson E., Hatton C., Bromley J., Caine A.,
editors. Clinical psychology and people with intellectual disabilities.
Chichester, John Wiley & Sons: 99–103.
Sanders A., Creaton J., Bird S. & Weber L. (1997) Victims with
learning disabilities: negotiating the criminal justice system. Oxford,
Oxford University Centre for Criminological Research.
Sanders A. & Young R. (1994) Criminal justice. London,
Butterworths.
Sigelman C.K., Budd E.C., Spanhel C.L. & Schoenrock C.J. (1981)
Asking questions of retarded persons: a comparison of yes–no
and either–or formats. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2:
347–57.
Winters J.J. & Semchuk M.T. (1986) Retrieval from long term store
as a function of mental age and intelligence. Am J Mental
Deficiency, 90: 440–8.