Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41859281›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2026

Adults report positive perceptions of ground rule instructions in mock investigative interviews.

Natali Dilevski, Sonja P Brubacher, Mohammed M Ali, Becky Earhart, Martine Powell

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Natali DilevskiCentre for Investigative Interviewing, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6705-5861
Sonja P BrubacherCentre for Investigative Interviewing, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Mohammed M AliCentre for Investigative Interviewing, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1744-0833
Becky EarhartCentre for Investigative Interviewing, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1222-7256
Martine PowellCentre for Investigative Interviewing, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5092-1308

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ground rules establish the conversational expectations during an interview and are intended to reduce interviewee discomfort and increase response accuracy towards problematic interview questions. This study explored perceptions of ground rule instructions in adult interviews. Younger (18-40 years) and older (60+ years) adults (

Indexed as

adult witnessesground rulesinterviewinterview instructionsperceptions of interview procedure

Identifiers

PMID41859281
PMCPMC12997476

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.