Using item response theory modelling to understand criminal justice professionals’ perceptions of cross-examination in child sexual abuse trials

Abstract

The need to educate criminal justice professionals about best practices to cross-examine complainants of child sexual abuse is widely acknowledged. Yet, a dearth of empirical information about their perceptions has hindered development of targeted professional education programmes. The present study compared perceptions of the quality of cross-examination of a child and an adolescent complainant between judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officers and witness support staff. Questioning type (appropriate/inappropriate) and judicial intervention (present/absent) were varied. Results of two-parameter Item Response Theory modelling showed that defence lawyers perceived significantly less unfairness to the complainant than the other professional groups. Judges’ views of unfairness were driven by the potential for confusion more than the age-inappropriate questioning. Police officers and witness support staff more likely rated the cross-examination as deleterious to the credibility and reliability of the complainant. Topics to include in professional development programmes around eliciting best evidence from vulnerable witnesses are discussed.

Keywords:

• Child sexual abuse
• criminal justice professionals
• cross-examination
• item response theory
• judicial interventions
• professional development
• questioning type
• Article History: Received 7 March 2022; Accepted 25 October 2022

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funding from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The views and findings expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Royal Commission.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Eunro Lee has declared no conflicts of interest.

Jane Goodman-Delahunty has declared no conflicts of interest.

Natalie Martschuk has declared no conflicts of interest.

Nina Westera has declared no conflicts of interest.

Martine B. Powell has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee (Deakin University: 2015-010; Charles Sturt University: HREC No 2015/031) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Notes

1 These differences were inferred as statistically significant, because dummy coded professional group variables significantly explained the latent perception factor (β = 0.23 - 0.46, SE = 0.056 - 0.064, p < .001) with reference to defence lawyers.

2 We thank the anonymous reviewer for their useful comment on this topic.