AO3

• Strength - A meta-analysis of 53 studies found, on average, an increase of 34% in the amount of correct information generated in the CI compared with standard interviewing techniques (Kohnken et al., 1999) = shows CI is effective. Although most of these studies involved volunteer witnesses (usually college students) tested in a lab.
• Weakness – quality or quantity - The procedure is designed to enhance the quantity of correct recall without compromising the quality of that information. However, Kohnken et al (1999) found a 61% increase of incorrect information = police need to treat all information as cautious
• Weakness – using it in practice - Police officers suggest that this technique requires more time than is often available, and instead they use techniques to minimise an eyewitness’s report. CI also requires special training and many forces have not been able to provide more than a few hours. This means some forces use some aspects of the interview but not others e.g. Thames Valley police do not use ‘changing perspectives’
• Weakness - Individual differences - Mello and Fisher (1996) found that the CI produced more significant information for older people, maybe because they are cautious about reporting information = CI is more effective for older people, in comparison to younger people