weaknesses of the cognitive interview

• Point: One limitation of the cognitive interview (CI) is that it is more time-consuming than standard police interviews, which can reduce its practicality and overall reliability. Evidence: Fisher et al. (1987) found that the CI requires significantly more time to conduct due to its structured and detailed nature, involving steps such as building rapport and using multiple recall strategies. Explanation: This time demand may lead to inconsistencies in its use, as officers under time constraints might shorten or skip crucial steps, reducing the standardisation and reliability of the method. Furthermore, the lack of practical feasibility in high-pressure environments limits its external validity, as it cannot always be generalised to real-world settings. Link: Therefore, while the cognitive interview has theoretical strengths, its time-consuming nature undermines its reliability and limits its generalisability to everyday police work. 
• Point: Another limitation is that the cognitive interview demands extensive training for police officers, which can affect its reliability and validity. Evidence: Kebbell and Wagstaff (1999) found that many police forces lack the resources to provide comprehensive training, leading to inconsistencies in how the CI is applied. Explanation: The absence of standardised training can result in reduced internal reliability, as the technique may be applied differently across cases. This variability also impacts ecological validity, as the CI’s effectiveness may not be consistently replicated in real-world scenarios. Additionally, the reliance on adequate funding limits its generalisability, as resource-constrained police departments may not adopt the technique at all. Link: Consequently, the cognitive interview’s potential benefits are compromised by the lack of training, which reduces its reliability and limits its application.