The Responsibilities of Science‑Based Interviewing Trainers

This is an incredibly important piece on the role of science in Science-Based Interviewing (SBI), of particular importance for those who currently offer training, or are considering doing so. In another sense though, this paper is relevant across the domain of SBI, since it cuts to the heart of the fundamental question of what it means for an interviewing training to be ‘science-based’. It is simply a must-read. I am thankful to Mark Severino, Detective Supervisor (Ret.) of the LAPD for his clarity of thought, for this stellar piece, and his exemplary commitment to science.

The Responsibilities of Science‑Based Interviewing Trainers

Mark Severino

Teaching Science‑Based Interviewing without scientific oversight and review is like building a bridge without an engineer. Oversight ensures the structure is built correctly; review confirms it has not drifted from the design. Without both, the bridge may look stable, but the moment real weight is applied, every flaw becomes visible.

Introduction

This report is designed to assist Science-Based Interviewing trainers in ensuring that their interviewing programs, labeled as science-based, continue to meet both scientific and legal standards associated with that designation. It aims to identify areas that may require early attention, helping to prevent avoidable courtroom challenges before they occur.

Science‑Based Interviewing (SBI) carries a level of responsibility that goes beyond ordinary training. Because SBI is rooted in decades of cognitive science, any curriculum that uses the SBI name must accurately reflect the research that supports it. The stakes are high: officers use these methods with real victims, witnesses, and suspects whose memories are fragile and whose rights must be protected. When science is misunderstood, oversimplified, or replaced with personal interpretation, the consequences extend far beyond the classroom. The quality of investigations, the reliability of statements, and the integrity of the justice process all depend on whether SBI is taught correctly. For this reason, trainers, agencies, and institutions must ensure that SBI instruction is grounded in scientific evidence, delivered ethically, and rigorously reviewed.

Errors in training do not stay in the classroom; they surface in interviews, investigations, and ultimately in court.

 Ethical Responsibilities in SBI Training

SBI is used with real victims, real witnesses, and real suspects, individuals whose rights, dignity, and futures depend on the accuracy of the interview. Because of this, trainers carry an ethical obligation that extends far beyond teaching technique.

Interviewers must understand:

• the duty to avoid contaminating a victim’s memory
• the responsibility to protect a witness’s free recall
• the obligation to avoid coercion, pressure, or implication of guilt with suspects
• the requirement to gather information in a manner consistent with the rule of law

Ethical interviewing is not an optional layer added to SBI. It is embedded in the science itself. When trainers misrepresent the science or teach personal interpretations under the SBI label, they risk harming the very individuals the method is meant to protect.

Scientific Oversight Is Essential

To ensure that an SBI curriculum is truly science-based, it must be reviewed and evaluated by scientists who specialize in the science. Reading scientific articles is not enough. Articles can be misunderstood, selectively interpreted, or stripped of context. Without scientific oversight, a curriculum can drift into personal theory or tradition while still being marketed as “science‑based.”

Independent scientific review:

• protects the integrity of the method
• ensures the rules accurately reflect the research
• prevents contradictions in science
• maintains the defensibility of the interview process

Scientific verification is essential because it ensures that the curriculum teaches the actual technique, not a trainer’s interpretation of it. Without this verification, even well‑intentioned instruction can drift from what the research actually supports.

Some trainers teach only the science because it feels safer than teaching the application, but SBI requires both. Teaching the research without teaching how to apply it is no different from teaching the theory of forensics without showing officers how to process a crime scene.

The Responsibility of Trainers Who Use the SBI Name

Calling a course “Science‑Based Interviewing” carries an obligation. SBI is not a brand or a style; it is a discipline rooted in cognitive science. Trainers who use the SBI name must teach:

• the actual science
• the actual rules
• the actual sequencing
• the actual timing principles
• the actual memory‑protection framework

When trainers rely on personal preferences or outdated habits, they undermine the method’s effectiveness and the accuracy of the collected information. Well-taught SBI yields reliable accounts, whereas poorly taught SBI can lead to ineffective interviews. 

If a method is labeled “science‑based,” then the scientific community owns it. By using that label, trainers and agencies inherit the scientific community’s standards, oversight, and accountability, and must keep the curriculum aligned with current research.

Law Enforcement’s Due‑Diligence Obligation

Law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to ask whether the curriculum being taught to their officers has been reviewed and validated by the scientific community. If a program is presented as “Science‑Based, “Evidence-Based,” or ”Research-Informed,”agencies must confirm that the underlying methods and instructional materials have been evaluated by qualified researchers, not simply derived from reading articles or relying on an instructor’s interpretation. Without scientific review, agencies risk adopting training that appears scientific but does not actually reflect the research, putting victims, witnesses, suspects, and the integrity of the justice process at risk. 

If a method is labeled as “science-based,” both trainers and students are required to treat it accordingly. Trainers must teach only procedures aligned with scientific principles, and officers must consistently apply them in the field. Mixing scientific and non-scientific techniques while using a science-based label undermines reliability, weakens defensibility, and exposes both the interview process and the agency to unnecessary risks.

The Danger of Teaching Techniques Without Establishing a Complete SBI Protocol

Science‑Based Interviewing does not currently exist as a single, fully published, universally adopted protocol. The science is well‑established, but the step‑by‑step structure that turns research into a reliable interviewing method must be built by the trainers who teach it. This responsibility is significant. When trainers fail to establish a complete protocol and instead teach only isolated techniques, the result is not SBI. It is an incomplete system that can produce inconsistent outcomes.  

Many trainers unintentionally fall into this trap. They may teach a general Cognitive Interview without the full set of retrieval mnemonics that make it effective. They may teach rapport skills without the governing rule of Relationship Before Questioning. They may teach questioning strategies without the Free Recall Before Questioning sequence. They may teach evidence handling without the structure of the Strategic Use of Evidence. Each omission weakens the method. SBI needs to function as a coordinated system. 

Because SBI does not come prepackaged as a complete protocol, trainers must build one, a full, scientifically aligned structure that integrates the rules, the timing principles, and the techniques into a single operational method. A partial system cannot deliver the accuracy or reliability that science demands.

Teaching only certain aspects of a science-based interviewing method carries substantial risks. When instructors present “the Cognitive Interview” but omit essential retrieval-support tools, such as the sketch plan, timeline technique, or model statement, the method loses key components that enhance its effectiveness in practice.

The Need for Collaboration in Building SBI Curricula

Since SBI is not yet a fully standardized or universally adopted protocol, trainers who develop SBI curricula have a responsibility to construct this framework with accuracy, transparency, and scientific alignment. This process cannot happen in isolation. Trainers must actively collaborate with subject matter experts, cognitive scientists, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. They should also evaluate existing SBI-aligned curricula instead of creating entirely new protocols from scratch.

The current issue is that many trainers are attempting to reinvent established methods, which leads to their curricula and their companies being isolated in the marketplace. This competitive separation undermines the scientific foundations of the training. When each trainer develops a different version of the SBI method, the field becomes fragmented, the approach loses its consistency, and the core principles can become diluted or distorted. Ultimately, the ones who suffer are not the trainers; it is the law enforcement officers who receive incomplete or inconsistent instruction, as well as the victims, witnesses, and suspects they are sworn to protect and serve.

Science‑Based Interviewing requires a cohesive and scientifically sound framework. Such a framework can only be developed if trainers prioritize collaboration, peer review, and scientific oversight over individual branding. Without this cooperation, the field cannot progress, the integrity of the science will be compromised, and the justice system will be unable to rely on the methodology. SBI must be standardized so that the field is prepared for the inevitable scientific and legal scrutiny that accompanies any method described as science‑based. 

When Scientific Alignment Breaks Down, the Consequences Extend Beyond Training and Into the Courtroom

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)

A Daubert challenge is a legal motion in which the defense argues that a method, technique, or expert opinion used in a case is not scientifically reliable and therefore should be excluded from evidence. Under the Daubert standard, judges may consider whether the method is testable, peer‑reviewed, has known error rates, follows established standards, and is generally accepted in the scientific community. These factors are not a checklist. The test under Daubert is reliability, and the listed factors are non‑exclusive considerations that may assist a judge in determining whether a method is reliable. A strong showing on one or more factors can be sufficient, though alignment with all five would make a method exceptionally defensible.

Frye Standard

While Daubert governs all federal courts and the majority of state courts, many large states—including New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California- continue to apply the Frye standard. Under Frye, the only requirement is that the methodology be “generally accepted” within the relevant scientific community. Notably, general acceptance is also one of the Daubert factors, meaning that a method aligned with the scientific community’s standards satisfies both frameworks.

Reliability Challenges in Practice

In a Daubert challenge, the defense can compare the curriculum labeled “science‑based” to the scientific community’s standards, and then compare the interviewer’s actions to both. If the curriculum does not accurately reflect the research, or if the interviewer failed to follow the curriculum, the defense can argue that the interview method is not scientifically reliable. Under Daubert, any inconsistency between the science, the curriculum, and the interview may be argued as evidence that the technique lacks the reliability required for admissibility.

Even when an interview is conducted lawfully, the statement may still be admitted, but its reliability can be challenged. Under Daubert, the defense can argue that deviations from the curriculum, or flaws within the curriculum itself, undermine the scientific foundation of the method. In these situations, the issue is not whether the statement was obtained legally, but whether it was obtained reliably, and that distinction can significantly weaken the statement’s evidentiary value.

Related Case Law

• General Electric v. Joiner (1997) – courts may exclude testimony when there is an “analytical gap” between science and application.
• United States v. Hebshie (2010) – the court excluded fire‑investigation testimony because the training did not match scientific standards.
• State v. Hull (2013) – the court found a disconnect between what the expert claimed, what the science supported, and what the training actually taught.

Together, these cases establish a consistent legal principle: courts do not evaluate scientific reliability in the abstract; they evaluate whether the method taught and the method applied align with the scientific community’s standards. When training drifts from the science, or when an interviewer’s actions drift from the training, the reliability of the resulting statement can become vulnerable under related case law. This alignment requirement applies equally to hard science, soft science, and experience‑based expertise, making scientific oversight and curriculum accuracy essential for defensibility.

It takes only one qualified scientist to disagree with how a technique is taught for a science‑based curriculum to become vulnerable.

Pathways to Daubert and Frye Defensibility

Law enforcement agencies seeking to ensure that their interviewing practices meet Daubert or Frye standards can pursue scientific validation in several ways. One approach is to have their curriculum reviewed by cognitive scientists who specialize in memory and interviewing research. Another, more comprehensive solution would be to develop a national working group of leading experts, cognitive scientists, legal scholars, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, to establish universal, science-aligned standards for SBI. A standardized, collaboratively developed framework would give agencies a clear benchmark for aligning their training with the scientific community’s expectations. It would significantly strengthen the method’s defensibility under both the Daubert and Frye standards.

Closing

Science-based interviewing is only as strong as the science that supports it, and only as trustworthy as the trainers who teach it. The SBI name carries weight, and with that weight comes responsibility: to protect memory, to protect people, and to protect the integrity of the justice system. Trainers must teach the real science. Agencies must demand scientific validation. And the field must hold itself to the standard that the name “Science‑Based Interviewing” promises. When the science is honored, the rules are followed, and the curriculum is grounded in true research, SBI becomes what it was designed to be: a reliable, ethical, defensible method for uncovering the truth.

The opinions expressed in this article, which was prepared in Mark Severino’s personal capacity, are his own and do not reflect the views of the Los Angeles Police Department.