A systematic review of the reliability of children's event reports after discussing experiences with a naïve, knowledgeable, or misled parent

Child maltreatment allegations often initially arise during informal conversations between children and a non-offending parent. Whether and how initial parent-child discussions influence the reliability of children's subsequent forensic reports are critical contemporary questions regarding child witness testimony. In the current paper, we systematically reviewed the extant empirical literature regarding the effects of parent-child discussions on the accuracy of children's subsequent event reports. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for English-language, peer-reviewed papers that examined children's (defined as participants 17-years-old or younger) reports after they discussed a target event with a parent. The systematic search yielded 23 eligible studies. To facilitate interpretation of the reviewed findings within the autobiographical memory and child witness literatures, our review is organized according to whether parents were naïve, knowledgeable, or misled prior to conversing with their children. We also report whether the studies demonstrated facilitative, misinformation, or non-significant effects of the parent-child discussion on the accuracy of children's reports during a subsequent memory interview with a researcher. Consistent with the broader child memory literature, facilitative effects were often found among studies where children discussed the target event with a knowledgeable parent. In addition, misinformation effects were frequently observed among studies with misled parents. Limitations of the current studies, including generalizability of the observations to experiences on which children testify, and recommendations for future research and for forensic professionals are discussed.