Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 514

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years.

Memon, Amina, Meissner, Christian A., Fraser, Joanne·2010·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Abstract

The Cognitive Interview (CI) is a well-established protocol for interviewing wit- nesses. The current article presents a study space analysis of laboratory studies of the CI together with an empirical meta-analysis summarizing the past 25 years of research. The study space comprises 57 published articles (65 experiments) on the CI, providing an assessment of the boundary conditions underlying the analysis and application of this interview protocol. The current meta-analysis includes 46 pub- lished articles, including 20 articles published since the last meta-analysis conducted a decade earlier (Kohnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull, 1999). Reassuringly for prac- titioners, the findings of the original meta-analysis were replicated with a large and significant increase in correct details and a small increase in errors. In addition we found that there were no differences in the rate at which details are confabulated. Importantly, the effect sizes were unaffected by the inclusion of recent studies using modified versions of the CI. The CI appeared to benefit older adult witnesses even more than younger adults. We highlight trends and gaps in research and discuss how our findings can inform policy and training decisions. The Cognitive Interview (or CI) is perhaps one of the most successful developments in psychology and law research in the last 25 years. It is a method that comprises a series of memory retrieval and communication techniques designed to increase the amount of information that can be obtained from an interviewee. The CI was initially developed 25 years ago by psychologists Ed Geiselman and Ron Fisher as a response to the many requests they received from police officers and legal professionals for a method of improving witness inter- views. It is based upon established psychological principles of remembering and retrieval of information from memory, and empirical laboratory research on the CI has documented its ability to dramatically improve the number of correct details while only slightly increasing the number of incorrect details (Schrieber & Fisher, 2006; Kohnken et al., 1999; Memon, 2006). Field tests of the CI have also indicated that police officers trained in its techniques gain more information and

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020518

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 514

Metadata

Authors
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J.
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Published
2010-11
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
340-372
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
OpenAlex
W1985956721
Cited by
514
References
6
FWCI
29.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0020518
The paper
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.