There is absolutely no reason or excuse not to videotape all interviews conducted by any "professional" and any child when discussing an allegation of sexual abuse. Research on interviewing using electronic recording equipment shows that it does not interfere with the process of the interview. Persons, including children, readily adapt to the presence of equipment and appear to forget it is there. It is best if the equipment is relatively unobtrusive and that no operator be present. This situation is easily created and an interview can be managed by remaining within the range of a camera set up to cover most of the interviewing area.

At least eleven states now have legislation mandating videotaping of initial interviews of children when there is an accusation of child sexual abuse. There has been no report of any trauma caused to children from the experience of these states. The study of the experience in Texas from 1983 - 1987 is typical (DeLipsey and James, 1988). There has been no difficulty experienced because of the act of videotaping and it will clearly identify the use of leading and suggestive questions and coercion to make the child confirm certain information.

Following a review of several hundred videotaped interviews, Slicner and Hanson (1989) describe as one of the many advantages of videotaping interviews the subsequent critical review of the interview. They found a consistent pattern of serious errors committed by numerous interviewers.

A study involving scientific analysis of videotapes and audio tapes from 38 cases around the country demonstrated the high level of adult behavior toward children that is coercive, leading, and contaminates the information gained from an interview (Wakefield & Underwager, 1988; Underwager and Wakefield, 1989).

Videotaping should be done:

• To protect the child from the harm generated by multiple interviews by different individuals.

• To maximize the reliability of the child's statements. Knowing that an interview is being videotaped is likely to improve the performance of the adults doing the interview.

• To possibly submit the tapes as an exhibit to accused and defense attorneys as well as prosecution. This may prevent unnecessary litigation and spare a child the potentially negative consequences of involvement in lengthy proceedings.

• To show that the alleged victim has not been subjected to coercive adult social influence that could shape a child into producing statements that are inaccurate and represent a fabrication of an account elicited by the adult behaviors.

• To capture the demeanor of the parties to the interview and preserve variables such as tone of voice, nonverbal behavior, pauses, gestures, and other factors which may affect an interview but are lost unless there is a recording.