Content of review 1, reviewed on October 07, 2020


The aim is clear for this study. The researchers used a mixed-methods approach in order to help triangulate the data that they received during data collection, in this case a collection of responses from expert practitioners in the field. The abstract breaks down key points in a way that talks about what is relevant and useful in a growing field of legal research and relates to best practices in the field.

TITLE Forensic interviewers’ experiences of interviewing children of different ages

The title specifically points out exactly what the study is about and what the reader should expect.


This reviewer counted 50 references cited in the references section of the paper. It is expected that research studies utilize current literature. In this study, 25 of the 50 references cited were dated within 5-7 years of the published paper, most of which were key journals in the field. All of the references showed to be compliant with current APA guidelines with very few, if any, errors. One minor point to consider would be research conducted by Dr. Tom Lyons, but it seems the authors chose other key researchers instead.


The context for the present study is made clear, with a sufficient and adequate literature review that described the current knowledge, as well as providing a sensible and logical progression to the research topic. The background, importance of the study, and the goals for the research were made clear. The introduction also provides the audience with relevant studies to follow-up with and historical research to provide perspective. The author(s) defined specialized terms and wrote out acronyms for better understanding of the research material. The population and relevance of the research were made apparent, also noting the opportunity of this research to advance understanding, create interventions, and have real-world benefits to the world in general. The purpose of the research, methodology, research gaps in current literature, and the objectives are made clear and seemed appropriate for the paper. Furthermore, the introduction mirrors the rest of the paper in a way that keeps grounded and connected throughout.


How were the subjects selected, what population do they represent, can the sample be generalized/compared? Validity is the ability to measure what you intended to measure (face validity, construct, content), internal and external validity; reliability is the ability to measure consistently (double coding by 2+ different researchers; retest); reproducibility is external verification if the study was conducted again with the same process;

The authors chose a sample size from an appropriate population of persons directly knowledgeable in the field the authors were conducting research. While this may be considered sampling bias, it was the researcher’s intent to explore and analyse information provided by participants in the field in an effort to understand directly from the participants. In this study, the participants represent a significant generalization of the population in question and is comparable across the discipline in question. The authors also discussed why certain participants were included and excluded. Specific and universally accepted methodologies were chosen, described, and implemented in this study, which makes the study valid and reliable. Double coding was utilized by one of the study’s authors and a second, blind coder, both of which were in agreement at 94-100% of the coding in the overall outcome. A mixed-methods approach was used to highlight a qualitative and quantitative response, thus signalling an importance of triangulation.


Statistical analyses was conducted in an appropriate and clear manner, with appropriately defined labelled tables and figures to help illustrate the data in a snapshot manner, but not in a way that takes away from the full narrative description of the Results section. The data described in this section add to the data and is not repetitive. All of the described results are illustrated as clear, statistically significant, and practically meaningful, with appropriate decimal placements that are consistent throughout the study. The Results section is described in a way that is results-specific and not interpreted until later sections.


The authors included an explicit statement of findings as well as mentioning key summaries of data learned during the study. While it was not in a succinct first statement, I feel that the authors’ ability to examine each aim and describe how the data answered the questions were very thorough and presented well. The paper’s meaning, relevance to the field, and importance are well-grounded, thus reiterating a new and novel approach to current literature and supporting established research in a different way. This study furthers the journal’s goals in this field and are very relevant to current and future researchers. The study’s aims are also backed by global research and established a creative critical thinking aspect. Limitations are stated in the study and show where future research could address these limitations, but that the limitations are not fatal flaws or major issues to the overall study in any way. The conclusion is presented in a manner that builds on current literature and is well-established, while also paving the way for future research.


    © 2020 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).


    Mikaela, M., Emelie, E., Sara, L., Lucy, A. 2020. Forensic interviewers' experiences of interviewing children of different ages. Psychology, Crime and Law.