Thesis (D.Phil (Social Work))--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Includes abstract in English and Afrikaans. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M. Soc. Wk.)--University of Queensland, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.Psych.Clin.) - University of Queensland, 2003. / Includes bibliography.

M.A. / The study aimed to investigate the subjective experiences of sexually abused children who testify in criminal courts in South Africa. As few research studies have addressed this problem, particularly from a qualitative perspective, the researcher identified a need to explore the issue further. In addition, it was believed that it would be useful to examine the topic from a both-and perspective. In other words, to investigate the positive and the negative aspects of the experience. The impact of other systems, such as courtroom preparation programmes, and individuals on the research participants was also addressed by the study. The researcher's intention was to honour the four participant's individual narratives. Thus, working from a social constructionist framework was appropriate, as such a framework highlights the existence of multiple realities. Although there are similarities across the four narratives, each one represents a unique reality as experienced by the respective participants. The following points reflect some of the most salient findings of the research: • There appears to be a strong link between receiving positive support and coping with the task of testifying. • Attending a courtroom preparation programme seems to impact very favourably on a child's ability to testify in criminal court. • Testifying in sexual abuse cases can be both traumatic or stressful, for example, having to see and identify the alleged perpetrator, and healing or empowering, for example, being able to put an end to the abuse by speaking out. • Courtroom reforms have gone a long way towards improving conditions for child witnesses. Nevertheless, the current situation is still far from ideal as many inconsistencies and obstacles characterize the legal domain as it relates to child witnesses. • The participants emphasized that they have a right to be respected and heard. In order to respect and satisfy the rights and needs of child witnesses, further research needs to be undertaken to ascertain their actual needs. Children need to become active participants in the reform process.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Drexel University, 2004. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 170-176).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 2000. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 121-128). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ59118

Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 1996. / Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.

Thesis (M Ed (Educational Psychology))--University of Pretoria, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references.