A Multimedia Aide
Investigative Interviewing

Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Master of Philosophy by Philip Jimmieson.

March 1994

Feel free to mail me with your comments on the thesis P.Jimmieson@csc.liv.ac.uk.


Title Page

Chapter 1
1.1 History of This Project
1.2 Overview of the Thesis

Chapter 2
Psychological Background
2.1 Assessment of Pain
2.1.1 Location
2.1.2 Intensity
2.1.3 Quality
2.1.4 Timing
2.2 Tools for Exploring Emotional Attitudes
2.3 The Demands of The Interview
2.4 Interview Methods
2.4.1 Statement Validity Analysis
2.4.2 Glaser and Frosh
2.4.3 Single Case Methodology
2.5 The SAGE Approach
2.6 "Computerising" The Interview

Chapter 3
Review of Related Work and Literature
3.1 Computer-Based Testing
3.2 Human-Computer Interaction Issues
3.2.1 Memory
3.2.2 Consistency
3.2.3 Metaphors
3.2.4 Programming for Errors
3.2.5 Providing a Feature-Rich Environment
3.3 Mental Models and Learnability
3.3.1 Complexity
3.3.2 The Gulfs of Execution and Evaluation
3.3.3 Feedback
3.4 Lessons Learned From Game Design
3.5 Important Macintosh User-Interface Basics
3.5.1 The Mouse
3.5.2 The Menu Bar
3.5.3 Colour
3.5.4 Sound
3.5.5 Speech
3.5.6 Animation and Video
3.6 Participative Development
3.7 Costs and Consequences of Restructuring Interactive Software
3.8 Summary

Chapter 4
System Design
4.1 General Interface Items
4.1.1 Textual Input
4.1.2 Messages to Users
4.1.3 The Sticky Finger
4.2 Modular Design
4.2.1 Introduction
4.2.2 Emotions I
4.2.3 Emotions II
4.2.4 Buildings
4.2.5 People
4.2.6 Emotions & People
4.2.7 Somatic Experiences
4.2.8 Environment
4.3 Customising The Package
4.4 "Choosing" Tools
4.4.1 The Emotions Tool
4.4.2 The Scrapbook - A Rejected Tool
4.4.3 Family Chooser
4.4.4 Emotions and People
4.4.5 Somatic Experiences
4.4.6 The Slide-Bar

Chapter 5
User Testing and Feedback
5.1 General Results and Changes
5.1.1 Hardware & Computer Experience
5.1.2 Use of Consistent Gender Throughout the Package
5.1.3 Size of Screen Buttons (OK etc.)
5.1.4 Wording of Questions
5.1.5 Modules/Menu-Items/Package-Structure Names
5.2 Results From the Emotions Module
5.2.1 Problems With Recognising Expressions
5.2.2 Scenes Used as a Discussion Point
5.2.3 Some Scenes Thought of as a Matching Task
5.3 Results From the Buildings Module
5.3.1 Replacement of the Scrapbook
5.3.2 Difficulties with Building-Name Question
5.3.3 Personalising Building Representations
5.4 Results From the Families Module
5.4.1 Selection of Appropriate Representations
5.4.2 Positioning of Figures
5.4.3 Confusion Over Instructions to the Child
5.4.4 Requests for Extra Representations
5.4.5 Sensitivity of Questions
5.4.6 Enhanced reporting Accuracy
5.4.7 Inclusion of Deceased Family Members
5.4.8 Inclusion of Self in the Family
5.5 Results From the Emotions and People Module
5.6 Results From the Somatic Experiences Module
5.6.1 Pen and Paper Studies to Determine Suitable Pain Representations
5.6.2 Size/Intensity Palette
5.6.3 Laterality Problems
5.6.4 Children's Descriptions of our Pain-Types
5.6.5 Throb Control - Slide Control vs. Buttons
5.6.6 Effects of reporting Historical and Current Pain
5.6.7 Use of the Tool by Children With Learning Difficulties
5.6.8 Physical vs. Emotional Pain
5.6.9 Repeated Use of the Tool
5.7 Summary

Chapter 6
6.1 Package Recoding
6.2 Training
6.3 The Introduction Module
6.4 The Emotions Tool
6.4.1 Position of the Tool
6.4.2 Problems With the Representations
6.4.3 Gender Problems
6.4.4 Splitting The Emotions Tool Into Two Parts
6.4.5 Emotion Indicator
6.5 The Scrapbook
6.5.1 Method of Operation
6.5.2 Scrapbook Problems
6.5.3 Replacement for the Scrapbook
6.6 The People Chooser
6.6.1 The Original Set of People
6.7 Child Representation
6.8 Emotions and People
6.8.1 Version I
6.8.2 Version II
6.8.3 Version III
6.8.4 Version IV
6.9 Somatic Experiences
6.9.1 The Pain Palette
6.9.2 Throb-Speed Control
6.9.3 Size/Intensity Palette
6.9.4 Alleviating Clutter in the Somatic Experiences Tool
6.10 The Navigation Palette
6.11 The Route Through the Modules
6.12 "Sets" and "Settings"
6.13 Conclusions

Chapter 7
Further Work and Conclusions
7.1 Planned Changes to The Package
7.1.1 Customising a Building
7.1.2 Free-Form Text-Input
7.1.3 New Interface for Emotions and People Module
7.1.4 Setting up the Package in Advance
7.1.5 Customising the Package
7.1.6 Identikit
7.2 Potential Enhancements Under Consideration
7.2.1 External Control of the Package
7.2.2 Extended Use of Colour and QuickTime Video
7.3 Conclusions
7.3.1 User-Testing and Prototyping
7.3.2 Participative Development
7.3.3 Barriers to Communication
7.3.4 Modelling Real-Life Situations
7.3.5 Usefulness of Function Libraries
7.4 Overview

A. Scenes in the Emotions Module
B The Operating-System Managers
B.1 The Memory Manager
B.2 QuickDraw and Colour QuickDraw
B.3 The Event Manager
B.4 The Font Manager
B.5 The File Manager
B.6 The Resource Manager
B.7 TextEdit
B.8 The Dialog Manager
B.9 The Sound Manager
B.10 The Alias Manager
B.11 QuickTime
C. Memory Management Issues
D. HyperCard
E. Macintosh Resources
F. Resource-Type Details
G. Animation Effects
H. Support Programs
I. Orkney Suspected Child-Abuse Case



Research has shown that subjects are likely to respond more truthfully to computer-based questionnaires than paper ones. It seems that it is in some way easier to respond to a computer, perhaps less embarrassing, than to a real person. Early attempts at computer systems for the elicitation of information simply took a questionnaire and "put it onto a computer". As more computing power became available to developers, these systems were enhanced with features such as graphical interfaces, coloured backgrounds and multiple fonts, but the same basic questionnaire approach has still prevailed.

This thesis describes a software package aimed primarily at children, for the elicitation of information about feelings, places and people. The intention was not only to utilise the positive effect of computer-based systems referred to above, but also to include extensive use of graphics and sound, available on modern computer systems, to capture the child's interest. The goal was to go beyond the traditional questionnaire approach, and allow an interaction between a child and computer more closely approximating to an interview. This demands minimisation of text-based communication, and the provision of alternative forms of communication to enable children to express themselves more freely.


My thanks to all those who have helped me with this project, and specifically to Professor Shave for supervising this work, to Sheila Hughes for all sorts of useful suggestions and for giving Erica a voice, to the rest of the project team (David Glasgow, Sheila Groth Larsen, Rachel Calam and Professor Tony Cox) for all their good ideas (and even the ones that weren't), and to Jon Tarrant who used up a lot of pencil correcting various versions of this document.

Finally, I'd like to thank Gene Roddenberry - it would all have been very different without him.