Cognitive Interviews Refined: How Visual Tools Enhance RCA Precision

Gathering accurate and comprehensive information during incident investigations is crucial in root cause analysis (RCA). One widely used technique in RCA is Cognitive Interviews (CI), designed to maximize the retrieval of detailed and accurate information from witnesses. However, integrating CI with advanced tools like TapRooT® can further enhance the information-gathering process, providing a more complete picture of the incident without compromising accuracy.

Understanding Cognitive Interviews

The Cognitive Interview, developed by psychologists Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman in the 1980s, is based on several psychological principles to improve the recall of witnesses. The technique involves:

1. Context Reinstatement: Encouraging witnesses to mentally recreate the environment and emotions they experienced during the incident.
2. In-depth Reporting: Allowing witnesses to describe everything they remember, even seemingly trivial details.
3. Recounting in Different Orders: Asking witnesses to describe the event chronologically.
4. Changing Perspectives: Encouraging witnesses to recall the event from different viewpoints.

These methods effectively elicit detailed and accurate accounts, making the CI a valuable investigation tool.

Enhancing Cognitive Interviews with TapRooT® RCA

TapRooT® is a widely recognized RCA methodology that uses a structured approach to identify the root causes of incidents. A key component of TapRooT® is the SnapCharT® tool, which creates a visual timeline of events. This tool can be integrated with the Cognitive Interview process to enhance information collection.

1. Using SnapCharT® for Contextual Reinstatement

Incorporating the SnapCharT® into the CI process allows investigators to visually map out the sequence of events as the witness recalls them. As witnesses describe their experiences, the information is plotted onto the SnapCharT®, creating a clear and organized timeline. This helps contextual reinstatement and ensures that the information collected is structured to highlight key events and decision points.

Using the SnapCharT® during the interview, interviewers can guide the witness to focus on specific moments or actions, helping to clarify the sequence of events and uncover any inconsistencies in the witness’s recall. This visual tool can also prompt further questions, ensuring that all relevant details are captured.

2. Procedural Context and SnapCharT® Integration

While the traditional CI focuses on environmental and emotional context, integrating TapRooT®’s SnapCharT® allows for a deeper exploration of the procedural context. As the witness recounts the event, the SnapCharT® helps visualize what happened and how it happened, including the processes and protocols that were followed or deviated from.

This procedural context is crucial in RCA, where the goal is to understand the immediate cause of an incident and the underlying factors. By plotting the procedural context on the SnapCharT®, investigators can identify patterns or gaps that may not be immediately obvious from verbal recall alone.

3. Enhancing Root Cause Questions with Visual Timelines

Integrating the SnapCharT® with the CI process also facilitates the incorporation of specific root cause questions. As the timeline is developed, interviewers can ask targeted questions about particular actions or decisions, such as “What was the rationale behind this action?” or “Were there any known risks at this stage?”

When combined with the visual timeline, these questions help uncover deeper insights into the incident. The SnapCharT® serves as a reference point, allowing the interviewer to ask more precise questions based on the sequence of events and ensuring that the root cause analysis is thorough.

4. Visual Feedback for Witnesses

Another advantage of integrating the SnapCharT® into the CI process is that it provides immediate visual feedback to witnesses. As the timeline is constructed, witnesses can see the sequence of events they’ve described, which can trigger additional memories or corrections. This dynamic interaction between the witness and the visual timeline helps refine the information’s accuracy.

Balancing Information Maximization with Accuracy

Combining the Cognitive Interview and the SnapCharT® tool in your TapRooT® RCA investigation provides a robust framework for gathering detailed and accurate information in RCA. While the CI alone effectively elicits detailed accounts, adding a visual timeline enhances the process by organizing information to highlight key events and procedural contexts.

By using the SnapCharT® during the CI process, investigators can maximize the information gathered without compromising accuracy. The visual timeline helps to structure the interview, making it easier to identify gaps, inconsistencies, or areas that require further exploration. This integration ensures that the information collected is comprehensive and precise, supporting a more thorough root cause analysis.

Conclusion

Enhancing the Cognitive Interview with tools like the TapRooT® investigation SnapCharT® can significantly improve the effectiveness of incident investigations in RCA. By combining the strengths of both techniques, investigators can gather more detailed and accurate information, providing a clearer understanding of the incident and its root causes. This integration not only maximizes the information retrieved but also maintains the accuracy and reliability of the data, ensuring that the root cause analysis leads to meaningful and actionable insights.

For more insightful content and updates, connect with me on LinkedIn.

Sources

Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancement techniques for investigative interviews: The cognitive interview. Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001

Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning and Memory, 12(4), 361-366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705

Sharman, S. J., & Powell, M. B. (2013). Do cognitive interview instructions contribute to false beliefs and memories? Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(2), 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1386