Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of the CI for witnesses with ASD compared to their age and IQ matched typical counterparts.
Methods: Twenty-six adults with ASD and 26 matched typical adults viewed a video of an enacted crime. Following an unrelated filler task, witnesses were interviewed with either a CI or a standard Structured Interview (SI), which was identical to the CI but did not include CI mnemonics.
Results: The ASD and typical groups did not differ on the quantity or quality of their reports when interviewed with a SI, t (24) = 0.30, ns, however, when interviewed with a CI the ASD group were significantly less accurate than the typical group, t (24) = 3.55, p < 0.005, Further, accuracy within the ASD group when interviewed with a CI was reduced specifically for details that might be considered to be central to the event; i.e. those relating to persons, t (18) = 3.51, p < 0.005, and actions, t (14) = 3.66, p < 0.005, but was comparable to controls for more peripheral details relating to surroundings, t (24) = 0.26, ns, and objects, t (24) = 1.92, ns. Conclusions: Individuals with ASD are as accurate and provide as detailed eyewitness reports as do typical individuals when interviewed with a SI. However when interviewed with a CI, they are significantly less accurate than their typical counterparts. Findings indicate that investigative professionals should be cautious in relying on the CI to interview witnesses with ASD.