|
 |
 |
DEFENDING THE REID TECHNIQUE OF INTERROGATION
The following material represents highlights from Mr. Joseph Buckley's
presentation at the Reid Conference for Investigative Training November
6-8, 2000. Mr. Buckley is President of John E. Reid and Associates,
Inc.
BACKGROUND
Over the last several years police interrogation tactics and techniques
have come under scrutiny by both the courts and the media. ABC's 20/20,
Dateline NBC, and CBS' 48 Hours have all featured segments
on the issue of false confessions. The expert that each of the networks
relied on for their criticism of police interrogation techniques was
Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist with the University of California,
Berkley.
In the past several years Dr. Ofshe has been retained by hundreds
of defense attorneys as an expert witness on police interrogation
techniques, and the phenomena of false confessions. |
In
his testimony Dr. Ofshe regularly criticizes what he describes as
The Reid Technique. We have had the opportunity to testify
against Dr. Ofshe on a number of occasions, and our office is regularly
contacted by prosecutors from around the country for information
about the nature of his testimony. As a result of these experiences
we placed on our web site (www.reid.com)
several years ago, a link called The Critics Corner in which
we discuss a number of Dr. Ofshe's criticisms and offer our responses.
The following discussion is an expansion of that basic information.
THE STUDIES
The studies that Dr. Ofshe uses as the primary foundation for his
contention that police interrogations frequently result in false
confessions are:
Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases by A.
Bedau and M. Radelet (published in the Stanford Law Review, 1987)
and, The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivation of Liberty
and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation
by R. Ofshe and R. Leo, published in the Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 1998.
Here are the details of these two studies.
Re: Miscarriages of Justice... This study reports on 350
cases from the 20th century in which the authors claim that innocent
people were convicted in homicide cases. Of these 350, 49 cases
involved confessions (14% of the total). However, many of these
interrogations involved clearly coercive tactics, including beatings,
and days of uninterrupted interrogation.
A critical review of this study, Protecting the Innocent: A Response
to the Bedau-Radelet Study, was published by Markman and Cassell
in the Stanford Law Review, November, 1988.
Re: The Consequences of False Confessions...
In this study Ofshe and Leo report on 60 cases from the prior 30
years in which they claim innocent people falsely confessed in homicide
cases. These 60 cases were broken down into 3 groups: cases that
were proven to be false (34); cases that were presumed to be false
(18); and, cases that were considered to be highly probable to be
false (8).
Of these 60 cases of purported false confessions, 8% were from juvenile
suspects and 28% were from individuals that were apparently emotionally
or mentally handicapped. It should also be noted that 30% of the
cases involved interrogations that lasted over 12 hours.
A very effective rebuttal to this study, The Guilty and the Innocent:
An Examination of Alleged Cases of Wrongful Conviction from False
Confessions, was written by Paul Cassell and published in the
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 523 in 1999. In this rebuttal
Professor Cassell points out that in at least 9 of the above referred
to 60 cases the individuals were telling the truth when they confessed.
These two studies represent anecdotal information. They should be
carefully reviewed, and the issues that they raise be carefully
considered, but they do not provide any scientific basis for the
claim that police interrogation techniques that conform to the guidelines
established by the courts result in false confessions. They do illustrate
that illegal interrogation procedures can cause innocent people
to confess.
THE REID TECHNIQUE
What exactly is The Reid Technique? On a regular basis we will see
a reference to an interrogation in which the interrogator said that
he/she used The Reid Technique, which may or may not have been the
case. At the same time, many of our critic's testify as to what
they believe The Reid Technique involves - oftentimes completely
misstating and misrepresenting the elements of The Reid Technique.
The following information should help to clarify what we mean when
we refer to The Reid Technique.
The key elements that define The Reid Technique are:
- A non-accusatory interview that is conducted
before the investigator engages in any accusatory interrogation.
This interview generally lasts from 30 to 45 minutes and includes
both investigative and behavior provoking questions.
- The interview is conducted in a controlled
environment with only one investigator interacting with the
subject.
- The interview and interrogation are distinctly
different procedures, usually separated by several minutes.
- The primary persuasive vehicle of the interrogation
is a theme that offers moral justification for the suspect's
crime. The theme is presented as a monologue and the investigator
discourages the suspect from offering denials or explanations
for incriminating evidence. At no time during the interrogation
process should the investigator state that if the suspect's
crime was somewhat justified, he may be afforded leniency.
- The impetus for the first admission of guilt
is in the form of asking an alternative question. This question
presents the suspect with two choices concerning some aspect
of the crime. For example, "Did you plan this out months in
advance, or did it pretty much happen on the spur of the moment?" The suspect is encouraged to accept the positive choice (spur
of the moment). In presenting and contrasting the alternative
question, the investigator must not offer threats or promises.
An example of an improper alternative question would
be, "Do you want to be charged with first degree murder, which
will mean life in prison, or was it just manslaughter, where
it happened on the spur of the moment?"
Once the suspect accepts the positive alternative,
active persuasion stops within the interrogation process. The
investigator asks non-leading questions to draw out the full confession.
The final step of the process is to have the verbal confession
witnessed and converted to a court admissible document.
If the process in question does not involve these elements, it
is not The Reid Technique.
GENERAL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Advisement of Rights
The issues surrounding police interrogation techniques and procedures
must start with some basic legal guidelines. Clearly, if the suspect
is in custody, he must be advised of his Miranda rights
and the appropriate waiver obtained before any questioning takes
place. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that
"focus of suspicion" does not require the advisement of rights
( Beckwith v. US 425 US 341 (1976)), and that merely because
the questioning takes place in the police station does not mandate
that the warnings be given ( Oregon v. Mathiason 429 US
492 (1977)).
Once the warnings are given in a custodial circumstance, the subject's
refusal to talk or request for a lawyer must be honored ( Dupnic
v. Cooper 963 F.2d 1220 (9th Cir. 1992))
Threats and Promises
The courts have spoken clearly that a confession that is the result
of physical abuse, threats of harm or promises of leniency is
inadmissible. (see Criminal
Interrogation and Confessions, Inbau, Reid, Buckley and Jayne,
4th edition, 2001)
As we have said in both of our books and at our training seminars,
" To protect ourselves from being misunderstood, we want to make
it unmistakably clear that we are unalterably opposed to the so-called
"third degree," even on suspects whose guilt seems absolutely
certain and who remain steadfast in their denials. Moreover, we
are opposed to the use of any interrogation tactic or technique
that is apt to make an innocent person confess. We are opposed,
therefore, to the use of force, threats of force, or promise of
leniency - any one of which might well induce an innocent person
to confess. We do approve, however, of such psychological tactics
and techniques as trickery and deceit that are not only helpful
but frequently indispensable in order to secure incriminating
information from the guilty, or to obtain investigative leads
from otherwise uncooperative witnesses or informants." ( Criminal
Interrogation and Confessions, page xii)
Trickery and Deceit
The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that when examining the
voluntary nature of a confession the court must examine the "totality
of circumstances," and that misrepresenting to the suspect evidence
that existed against him will not nullify a confession:
" The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that
[the suspected accomplice] had made is, while relevant, insufficient
in our view to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible.
These cases must be decided on the "totality of circumstances."
Frazier v. Cupp 394 US 731 (1969).
Other cases which address the acceptability of tactics that involve
trickery and deceit include:
U.S. v. Harris 914 F.2d
927 (7th Cir. 1990)
Holland v. McGinnis 963 F.2d 1044 (7th Cir. 1992)
State v. Kelekolio 849 P.2d 58 (Haw. 1993)
Lucero v. Kerby 133 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998)
U. S. v. Byram 145 F.3d 405 (1st Cir. 1998)
One court, however, drew a distinction
between verbally misrepresenting evidence and creating it. In the
case of State v. Cayward 552 S.2d 971 (Fla. 1989) the investigators
had created a falsified crime laboratory report that implicated
the suspect in a homicide and, with the use of this prop, were successful
in persuading the suspect to confess. The court recognized the distinction
between "verbal assertions and manufactured evidence" ruling that
the latter threatens a loss of integrity within the judicial system.
Specifically, the court was concerned over the possibility that
a false report used for interrogation purposes might well be retained
and filed in police records and thus be subject to public attention
as though it were fact.
TYPES OF FALSE CONFESSIONS
The courts require that a confession is both voluntary (the product
of the suspect's free will) and trustworthy (a statement that is
accurate and true).
Voluntary False Confession
A voluntary false confession is one in which the subject confesses
in the absence of any police questioning. Individuals may make a
voluntary false confession as the result of organic or functional
mental disorder, or for some specific purpose or gain, such as the
protection of the actual offender.
Coerced Compliant Confession
An allegation of a coerced compliant confession typically occurs
when the suspect claims that he confessed to achieve some instrumental
gain, such as being allowed to go home; bringing the interrogation
to an end; or escaping the inherent psychological or physical pressures
of the interrogation.
Coerced Internalized Confession
Coerced internalized confessions are confessions that are allegedly
false and occur when the investigator successfully convinces an
innocent suspect that he is guilty of a crime he does not remember
committing. There are three types of suspects who may claim that
a faulty memory affected the trustworthiness of their confession:
guilty suspects who have given a voluntary and trustworthy confession
and are now looking for some way to discredit it; a guilty suspect
who actually does not remember committing the crime; and, an innocent
suspect who is convinced through the interrogation process that
he must be guilty, and, therefore, accepts responsibility for committing
the crime through a confession.
SUSPECT SUITABILITY
It is important to understand some of the factors that could influence
the admissibility of a confession, as well as what our critics describe
as the "model of interrogation" that they claim investigators follow.
Age When conducting an interview or interrogation, the investigator
must carefully assess the suspect's suitability. The courts have
often spoken about the need to examine the "totality of circumstances"
(particularly with a juvenile suspect) when examining the voluntary
nature of a confession. As the U. S. Supreme Court said:
"The totality approach permits - indeed, it mandates - inquiry
into all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. This
includes evaluation of the juvenile's age, experience, education,
background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity
to understand the warning given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment
rights, and the consequence of waiving those rights." Fare v. Michael
C. 442 U.S. 707 (1979). An investigator should remember that
the younger a suspect is, the more he may lack the confidence to
offer strong denials, and may even try to please the investigator.
Furthermore, the younger a suspect is, the less active persuasion
should be used during the interrogation. More emphasis should be
placed on the factual elements of the case and the incriminating
evidence or conflicting statements made by the suspect.
In a custodial situation it may be advantageous to have the juvenile
suspect repeat back the essential elements of the rights so as to
demonstrate his understanding of the advisement.
In the case of Gallegos v. Colorado 370 U.S. 49 (1962) the
U. S. Supreme Court reversed the murder confession of a 14-year-old
boy because the trial court had admitted a confession that had been
obtained while the boy was being questioned alone. According to
the majority of the Court, he had "no way of knowing what the
consequences of his confession were without advice regarding his
constitutional rights from someone concerned with securing him those
rights - and without the aid of more mature judgment as to the steps
he should take in the predicament in which he found himself."
While most courts have declined to adopt a fixed rule that renders
youthful suspects incapable of waiving Miranda rights, some
courts and legislators have applied what is referred to as the "interested
adult rule" which prescribes that there can be no valid waiver by
a youth under a certain age (16, 17 or 18). In Illinois, for example,
any suspect under the age of 13 must be represented by legal counsel
during any custodial questioning.
Intelligence
Another important factor to consider is the intelligence level of
the suspect.
In the case of Smith v. Duckworth 910 F.2d 1492 (7th Cir.1990)
the U.S. Court of Appeals held that a finding of involuntariness
cannot be predicted solely upon mental instability, but that a defendant's
mental state is relevant to the extent it makes a suspect more susceptible
to "mentally coercive police tactics."
In another case, Vance v, Bordenkircher 692 F.2d 978 (4th
Cir. 1982) the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the murder confession
of a 15-year-old youth who had an IQ of 62 and a mental age of nine
was voluntary and admissible. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to
review this case.
With the above in mind, it becomes very important for the investigator
to document the suspect's vocabulary, verbal skills and level of
education to be able to demonstrate the suspect's ability to understand
what s/he was saying.
It is important for the investigator to conduct the interrogation
at the suspect's level of understanding and comprehension rather
than strictly the chronological age. If we have a suspect who is
20 years old but has the IQ level of a 12 year old, we should conduct
the interrogation as though we were talking to a youngster.
Language
When questioning a suspect in a language which is not their first
language, the investigator should make sure to read the Miranda
rights in both languages if feasible. If the interrogation is conducted
in English, it is important to document the appropriateness of the
suspect's responses, as well as their requests for clarifications,
and the quality of their responses.
If feasible, the confession should be read in the suspect's native
language before he signs the document.
Mental, Emotional or Physical Health
If a suspect displays behaviors that are strongly suggestive of
severe mental, emotional or physical disorders, it may not be appropriate
to interrogate them at that time. If a suspect exhibits severe thought
disorders, they should not be interrogated.
Suspects who exhibit severe anxiety disorders may be more susceptible
to false confessions as a result of perceived duress. Suspects who
are addicted to drugs or alcohol should not be interrogated when
exhibiting clear symptoms of withdrawal, or when significantly under
the influence of drugs or alcohol.
In anticipation of possible challenges to a confession based on
any of the above elements, it is advisable to document the basic
information about the suspect's suitability at the time of questioning.
Consequently, we suggest that the suspect complete a Medical Data
Sheet. We have provided an example of a Medical Data Sheet on the
back page of this newsletter that you can duplicate and use in future
interrogation situations.
THE OFSHE MODEL
Dr. Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist with the University of
California, Berkley, has described in testimony, the following as
the "model of interrogation" that he claims investigators follow
in their interrogations. According to Ofshe, interrogation consists
of two parts: eliciting the first admission and obtaining the post
confession narrative.
In an effort to obtain the first admission of guilt, the interrogator
must convince the suspect that "there is absolutely no doubt that
you committed this crime." To further accomplish this, the interrogator
overwhelms the suspect with the evidence, including the use of fabricated
evidence. The general demeanor should be one that conveys the idea
to the suspect that the interrogator will get more upset if the
suspect attempts to or continues to deny any involvement in the
crime.
One of the interrogator's goals is to make the suspect feel helpless
by making such statement as "You're not leaving this room until
you confess." or, "If you tell me you did this you can go home and
sleep in your own bed tonight." or, "With the evidence we have,
there's no doubt that you will be convicted of this. The only question
is how long are you going to sit in prison."
Once the sense of "helplessness" has been established, the investigator
obtains the first admission of guilt by using a motivating statement.
Ofshe describes low-end motivating statements to include comments
such as, "You will feel better about this once you tell the truth."
or, "For everyone concerned, tell the truth." or, "Get this over
with and out it behind you - just tell the truth." If these statements
are not successful, then the investigator will use high-end motivating
statements such as, "You will be sentenced to the maximum term unless
you confess." or, "If you don't tell the truth I will get your children
turned over to child protective services." or, "If you don't confess
the judge will make an example out of you and give you the maximum
sentence."
Once the investigator obtains the initial admission of guilt, he
then moves into the second stage of the interrogation, which is
to obtain the post confession narrative in which he attempts to
develop the details of how the suspect committed the crime. Ofshe
relies extensively on the post confession narrative to identify
what he suggests are false confessions. The criteria he uses for
suggesting that a confession is false are: 1) the fact that the
suspect's statements conform to the police theory of how the crime
was committed; 2) there are factual inconsistencies between the
suspect's statements and the actual evidence; and, 3) there are
no details that can be used for independent corroboration of the
confession.
RESPONDING TO THE OFSHE MODEL
In utilizing the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation the investigator
begins with Step 1 - The Direct Positive Confrontation. Our purpose
in Step 1 is to establish and express our high confidence in the
suspect's guilt and to establish a basis (in the suspect's mind)
for the interrogation.
To help establish this sense of confidence in the suspect's guilt
we make a very direct accusatory statement, "The results of our
investigation clearly indicate that you did [issue]," while holding
an evidence file or utilizing other props (such as a videotape).
The pretense for the interrogation may be described as trying to
establish the circumstances behind what happened; trying to find
out what kind of person the suspect is; trying to establish the
extent and frequency of his involvement; and/or, to find something
about the suspect that can be used as the basis for a compliment.
Criticism: The investigator is expressing a false confidence
in the suspect's guilt.
Response: The interrogation is being conducted because there
was information developed during the investigation or the subject's
interview that indicated his potential involvement. Furthermore,
the suspect knows whether or not he committed the crime. If the
interrogator is incorrect the suspect should offer strong denials.
Criticism: By focusing the interrogation on why the suspect
committed the crime or what the full circumstances were behind the
commission of the act, the interrogator is directing the suspect's
attention away from the possible consequences of his actions.
Response: In order to persuade the suspect to tell the truth,
it is essential to reinforce their rationalizations for committing
the crime versus focusing their attention on the possible consequences.
Following the initial confrontation, the interrogator begins Step
2 - Theme Development. The core of Step 2 is to present to the suspect,
in a monologue, reasons and excuses which morally (not legally)
excuse the suspect's behavior. The themes do not plant new ideas
in the deceptive suspect's mind, but allow the suspect to feel more
comfortable talking about his crime by allowing him to reduce the
perceived consequences associated with it - both real consequences
(those affecting his freedom or livelihood) and personal consequences
(those affecting the suspect's self-esteem). The theme should be
presented in a compassionate and understanding tone of voice.
Criticism: Themes imply a promise of leniency.
Response: At no time should the suspect be told that if he
committed the crime for an understandable reason that the consequences
would be less.
"even if a suspect.influenced perhaps by wishful thinking assumed
that he would get more lenient treatment .[this] would not, as a matter
of law, make the confession inadmissible." State v. Nunn 212 Ore.
546, 321 P.2d 356 (1958)
Criticism: The investigator does not present the evidence
against the suspect so that the suspect cannot make an intelligent
choice as to whether or not to confess.
Response: At the time of the interrogation there may not
have been irrefutable evidence that the suspect committed the crime,
which is why he was interrogated. He made a free choice to voluntarily
confess.
Criticism: The interrogator's use of fictitious evidence
(which may occur during theme development) may convince an innocent
suspect that he is guilty.
Response: An innocent suspect knows that the evidence could not
exist and, therefore, is not persuaded by it.
During the course of the presentation of the themes, most suspects
will attempt to deny any involvement in the commission of the crime.
This brings us to Step 3 - Handling Denials. The more often a suspect
verbalizes a denial, the less likely he will be persuaded to tell
the truth. Consequently, the interrogator should attempt to discourage
weak denials by the use of verbal phrases ("Jim, wait just a minute")
combined with nonverbal gestures (turning the head away and using
the hand in a stop gesture).
Criticism: The interrogator prevents an innocent suspect
from telling the truth.
Response: The interrogator discourages the suspect from offering
denials but does not prevent him from saying anything.
Criticism: Investigators are not trained to recognize or
distinguish a truthful denial from a deceptive denial.
Response: Studies show that investigators can identify truthful
and deceptive suspects based on their verbal behavior. Deceptive
denials are typically easily cut off; avoid descriptive language;
conflict with the suspect's nonverbal behavior; and, become acceptant.
On the other hand, truthful denials are not easily cut off; use
descriptive language; have supporting nonverbal behavioral characteristics;
and, develop into sincere anger.
As the interrogation continues, many suspects who have been ineffective
in verbally dissuading an interrogator's confidence will oftentimes
simply turn off the interrogator and wait him out. Through Steps
5 and 6 it is important for the interrogator to regain the suspect's
attention. One technique for doing so is to physically move closer
to the suspect. This is done to establish and maintain emotional
closeness. It is not done to intimidate the suspect. If the suspect
appears uncomfortable with this closeness, the interrogator should
move back.
When a suspect appears ready to confess, the interrogator oftentimes
will use an alternative question (Step 7) to obtain the first admission
of guilt.
The Alternative question offers the suspect two incriminating choices
concerning some aspect of the crime. Accepting either choice is
an admission. The alternative question offers the suspect a face-saving
choice to make the first admission. The interrogator should not
present possible punishments when contrasting the positive and negative
choices for the alternative question.
A few examples of proper reinforcing statements and alternative
questions would be:
"If this was planned out months in advance that tells me you have
a criminal mind and are capable of committing much more serious
crimes than this and I think that's despicable. But if this happened
on the spur of the moment I can understand that. Did you plan
this out for months in advance, or did it pretty much just happen
on the spur of the moment?"
"If you want people to believe that you are greedy and spent this
money on fancy things for yourself then my advise to you is to say
nothing. But if you really needed this money for your family that
would be important to know. Did you spend the money on yourself,
or did you use it to help out your family?"
"If this was not your idea and somebody talked you into it that
would be very important for me to include in my report. On the other
hand, if this whole thing was your idea and you were the mastermind
behind it, you're doing the right thing by saying nothing. Was
this whole thing your idea, or did you get talked into it?"
A few examples of improper reinforcing statements and alternative
questions would be:
"If you keep lying to me about this I'm bound to lose my temper
and you don't want me to lose my temper. Do you want to be charged
with first degree arson, or was this just criminal damage to property?"
"If you want to spend the next 20 years of your life behind bars
you're doing the right thing by saying nothing. By saying nothing
that's exactly what will happen. Do you want to spend time in
jail, or go home after we get this straightened out?"
"If this was the first time you did something like this I am sure
the judge will take that into consideration - but he won't know
unless you tell me. So, do you want us to take away your children
because you're an unfit mother, or do you want to be able to see
your kids again?"
Criticism: The alternative question forces the suspect to
incriminate himself.
Response: The suspect always has a third choice, which is
to say that neither alternative is true.
Criticism: The alternative question presents a promise of
leniency or threatens the suspect with harsh punishment.
Response: At no time should the interrogator describe possible
charges, punishment or leniency in association with the alternative
question.
Once the suspect accepts one side of the alternative question, in
Steps 8 and 9 the interrogator should verbally develop the details
of the crime, and then convert the verbal confession into a recorded/written
document.
The admission should be developed into the confession by asking
a series of open-ended questions that allow the suspect to provide
the details of his criminal behavior, such as:
"Then what happened?"
"Where did you go next?"
"What did you do after that?"
It is important to attempt to develop corroborative information,
such as details about the crime that had been concealed form the
public and possible suspects, or information about the suspect's
crime that can be independently verified and was unknown until the
suspect confessed.
Crime information that is important to develop includes pre-crime
behaviors (observation, preparation, discussions, where suspect
obtained tools, weapons or knowledge used in the commission of the
crime), as well as details concerning the commission of the crime
(method of entry, nature of contact with the victim, statements
to victim, position or condition of victim or property after the
crime, how money was concealed, how property was transported, etc.),
and post-crime behaviors (where stolen goods/weapon/clothes/etc
are now, who was told, where suspect went, etc.).
It is important to note that very few confessions represent a 100%
accurate and complete description of the crime because some suspects
desire to protect the identity of an accomplice; attempt to minimize
the seriousness of the crime; to reduce the level of shame or embarrassment;
to prevent the recovery of incriminating evidence; or to manipulate
the investigators.
CONCLUSION
With the above in mind, at no time in a properly conducted interrogation
should the interrogator make the type of statements that are described
as typical in the Ofshe model. The type of statements that should
not be made include:
"You're not leaving this room until you confess."
"If you tell me you did this you can go home and sleep in your own
bed tonight (when such is not the case)."
"With the evidence we have, there's no doubt that you will be convicted
of this. The only question is how long you are going to sit in jail."
"You will be sentenced to the maximum term unless you confess."
"If you don't tell the truth I will get your children turned over
to protective services."
"If you don't confess the judge will make an example out of you
and give you the maximum sentence."
The goal of the interrogation process is to develop the truth. It
is not a process designed to obtain a confession by any means from
any suspect. The interrogator, following the guidelines established
in The Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation, will be meeting all of
the guidelines established by the courts in conducting proper interrogations
to develop admissible confessions from guilty suspects.
MEDICAL DATA SHEET
Name _______________________________________ Date ____________ Time
_________
1. In the last 24 hours, have you had any alcohol, drugs or medications?
Y N
If yes, please explain ________________________________________________________
2. In the last 24 hours, how many hours of sleep have you had? _________________________
3. When did you eat your last meal? ______________________
4. Circle the last year of school that you completed: 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Middle High College Post-graduate
5. Are you presently experiencing any physical discomfort? Y N
If yes, please explain _______________________________________________________________
6. Are you presently under a physician’s care for any medical
problem? Y N
If yes, please explain
_______________________________________________________________
7. Are you pregnant? Y N
8. In the last 12 months, have you ever talked to a psychologist
or psychiatrist about an emotional or mental health problem? Y N
If yes, please explain _______________________________________________________________
9. In the last 2 years, have you attempted suicide? Y N
If yes, please explain
________________________________________________________________
10. How would you describe your present emotional and physical well-being?
(please check one of the following):
Excellent ________ Good ________ Alright ________ Poor _________ |
|
