In conducting peer review of forensic interviewers, it is important not only to critique the question types and adherence to a protocol, but also to critique whether, or not, the interviewer asked questions that would elicit information that can be corroborated by the multi-disciplinary team. This workshop provides concrete information to expand the peer review process to include this critical function. The workshop also discusses the differences between mentoring, supervision, peer review and case review and will offer concrete suggestions for creating an environment for the effective and helpful exchange of feedback.
1. Increase understanding of the different types of mechanisms that contribute to the professional skill development of forensic interviewers and the research that supports these interactions.
2. Enhance the peer review process by offering strategies for cultivating trust amongst the team and an environment conducive to giving and receiving feedback.
3. Offer metrics for examining how details around potential corroborative elements were captured in the interview.