Cognitive Interview AO3

• -One limitation: not all elements of the original cognitive interview are equally effective or useful. Milne & Bull found each of the techniques used alone produced more information than a standard police interview. They also found that using report everything & reistate the content produced better recall than any of the other elements or combination of them. This confirmed police officers suspicions that some aspects of Cl are more useful than others. This casts some doubt on the overall credibility of the CI.
• -One limitation: the police may be reluctant to use Cl; it takes more time & training than the standard police interview. More time is needed to establish rapport with a witness and allow them to relax. It also requires special training and many forces don't have the resources to provide more than a few hours (Kebbel and Waggstaff). This suggests that the complete CI isn’t a realistic method for police officers to use and it may be better to focus on a few key elements.
• +One strength: Evidence that it works. köhnken meta analysed 55 studias comparing the CI & ECI with the standard police interview. The CI gave an average 41% increase in accurate information compared to the standard criteria. 4 studies in the meta analysis showed no difference between the types of interinew. This shows that the Cl is an effective technique in helping witnesses recall information that is stored in memory but not immediately accessible.
• +-Köhnken also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled by participants. This issue applied to the ECI which produced more incorrect details than the CI. CI may sacrifice quality /accuracy of EWT in favour of quantity / details. This means that police officers should treat EWT from CI/ECI with caution.