Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40295554›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Development and testing of a Time-Critical Questioning protocol for eliciting information in time-sensitive contexts.

Lorraine Hope, Feni Kontogianni, Wayne Thomas, Alejandra De La Fuente Vilar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lorraine HopeDepartment of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, PO1 2DY, UK. Lorraine.Hope@port.ac.uk.
Feni KontogianniUniversity of Winchester, Winchester, UK.
Wayne ThomasUniversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Alejandra De La Fuente VilarUniversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Getting information quickly is crucial in time-sensitive operational contexts to (i) assess immediate threats, (ii) inform decision-making, and (iii) expedite transmission of intelligence. Research to date has neglected this interviewing context and current practices are not informed by psychological science or empirical data. To address this gap, we developed a Time-Critical Questioning (TCQ) protocol to (i) quickly establish rapport; (ii) align the interviewer-interviewee roles and goals b; (iii) promote reporting of priority information; and (iv) implement effective questioning practices to support memory retrieval. Following a developmental pilot study (N = 111), we used a novel immersive methodology to assess the TCQ protocol, a two-part interviewing approach comprising framing instructions (I-RELATE instructions) and structured follow-up questioning. Participants (N = 142) completed an Escape Room activity in teams for 60 min and were interviewed individually for 10 min using the TCQ protocol or a control interview. Participants interviewed using the TCQ protocol reported more correct priority information (i.e., how to escape) than participants interviewed with the control interview. Notably, participants interviewed using the TCQ protocol provided more information earlier (i.e., during free recall) than those in the control condition. This expedient information gain may be useful in time-sensitive interviewing contexts.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsTime FactorsYoung AdultEyewitnessInformation elicitationInterviewMemoryRapportTime-sensitive

Identifiers

PMID40295554
PMCPMC12037894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.