Access asks whether someone could observe something. Knowledgeability asks whether they could actually understand what they observed — a distinction that changes everything about how we question witnesses.
In my previous two articles, I demonstrated that behavioral lie detection doesn’t work — achieving only 52 percent accuracy — and introduced Dr. Christian Meissner’s framework for assessing credibility through access: questioning whether witnesses could actually observe what they claim to have observed.
Today, I’ll explore the second critical dimension of Meissner’s approach: knowledgeability. While access addresses whether someone could observe or experience something, knowledgeability addresses whether they could accurately understand, interpret, and report what they observed.
This distinction is crucial. A witness might have had perfect access — positioned close, good lighting, clear sightlines — but still lack the knowledgeability to accurately interpret what they observed. Someone watching a medical procedure might see everything clearly but completely misunderstand what’s happening. An employee might overhear a technical conversation but lack the expertise to comprehend its meaning.
Knowledgeability assessment asks: does the person possess the expertise, background, training, or experience necessary to understand and accurately report what they’re claiming?
This isn’t about intelligence — it’s about relevant knowledge, experience, and understanding. A brilliant person with no medical training cannot reliably interpret symptoms. An experienced mechanic might perfectly understand automotive systems but lack knowledge about electrical engineering. Knowledgeability is domain-specific and experience-dependent.
Research on expert witness credibility emphasizes evaluating expertise, respect within the relevant field, and appropriate degrees and certifications. While lay witnesses aren’t experts, the principle applies: when witnesses make claims requiring specialized knowledge — technical assessments, professional judgments, or interpretations beyond simple observation — strategic questioning must establish whether they possess sufficient knowledgeability.
Consider a workplace safety investigation. A witness reports: “The machine was malfunctioning — the pressure gauge was reading wrong and the safety interlock wasn’t engaged.” This claim requires technical knowledgeability:
Traditional credibility assessment would evaluate the witness’s demeanor. Knowledgeability assessment asks: “What’s your experience with this equipment? What training have you received? How do you know the gauge was reading wrong? What does an engaged safety interlock look like?”
People regularly make claims that exceed their actual knowledge. Sometimes this is intentional deception. More often, it’s honest error — people genuinely believe they understand something they don’t, or they conflate observation with interpretation without realizing the distinction.
Research shows that confidence and accuracy are poorly correlated. Witnesses can be highly confident about interpretations that are completely wrong because they lack the knowledgeability to realize they’re wrong. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action: people with limited knowledge in a domain often fail to recognize the limits of their understanding.
Knowledgeability assessment protects against multiple problems:
Before evaluating specific claims, establish the witness’s baseline knowledgeability in relevant domains.
These questions establish foundational knowledgeability. Someone with ten years operating equipment has different baseline knowledge than someone who started last week. Both might have had access to observe something, but their capacity to interpret what they observed differs dramatically.
Formal training provides structured knowledge. Strategic questioning reveals not just whether training occurred, but its depth, recency, and relevance to the claimed knowledge.
Frequency builds expertise. Someone who performs a task daily has deeper knowledgeability than someone who does it quarterly. Recency matters too — skills and knowledge degrade without regular use.
Once baseline knowledgeability is established, test specific knowledge claims that underpin the witness’s testimony.
These questions reveal depth of understanding. Someone with genuine knowledgeability can explain concepts, describe mechanisms, and predict related indicators. Someone claiming knowledge they don’t possess will struggle, deflect, or provide circular explanations.
This is perhaps the most critical questioning area. People constantly present interpretations as observations:
Strategic questioning separates what witnesses actually perceived from what they concluded. The former tests access; the latter tests knowledgeability.
Recognizing abnormality requires knowing normality. Claiming something is “wrong” requires understanding what “right” looks like. These questions test whether the witness possesses comparative knowledge necessary for their judgments.
When witnesses lack the knowledgeability they’re claiming, they often display predictable patterns. Recognizing these patterns helps identify when further questioning or expert consultation is needed.
When these signs appear, don’t assume deception. Often, witnesses genuinely believe they understand more than they do. Appropriate follow-up includes:
Let me illustrate knowledgeability assessment.
Initial claim: An employee reports that an equipment malfunction caused a production issue, and blames operator error.
Traditional approach: Interview the employee, evaluate confidence and demeanor, accept or reject the claim based on how believable they seem.
Knowledgeability assessment approach — strategic questions:
Limited experience: Six months observing, no hands-on operation.
No training: Cannot distinguish normal from abnormal operation.
Vague observations: “Weird noise” without ability to characterize it.
Inference as observation: “Operator looked confused” becomes “operator error.”
Circular reasoning: “It failed, so the operator must have erred.”
Knowledge inflation: Claims the machine was “malfunctioning” without any basis to assess it.
Outcome: This witness had access — present, observed the equipment — but lacked the knowledgeability to interpret what they observed. The investigation should consult the actual operator (who has knowledgeability), maintenance records (objective data), and equipment experts (who can assess malfunction versus operator error). Access without knowledgeability produces unreliable testimony, despite the witness’s certainty.
The CI’s free recall phase reveals knowledgeability naturally. When witnesses provide rich, specific sensory details about things they claim to have observed, it suggests genuine access and knowledge. When they provide strong conclusions but vague supporting details, it suggests inference beyond their knowledge.
Strategic questioning after free recall can probe: “You said [technical conclusion]. What specifically did you observe that led to that?” The transition from free recall to focused questioning naturally reveals the limits of actual knowledge.
SUE techniques work powerfully with knowledgeability assessment. When someone claims technical knowledge about something, strategic questions followed by tactical evidence disclosure can reveal whether they genuinely possess that knowledge or are fabricating it.
If they claim expertise, they should be able to answer knowledgeable questions before you disclose evidence. If they demonstrate true expertise in their responses, statement-evidence consistency supports credibility. If they lack demonstrated knowledge but claim it anyway, statement-evidence comparisons become even more diagnostic.
This is where knowledgeability assessment requires the most work. You cannot assess whether someone possesses relevant knowledge unless you understand what knowledge the situation requires. This means researching the technical aspects yourself or consulting experts, understanding what training or experience would provide relevant knowledge, knowing what someone with expertise should be able to explain, and identifying what requires specialized knowledge versus lay observation.
As I’ve emphasized, fewer than one in ten interviews receives adequate planning. Knowledgeability assessment is impossible without thorough preparation about the subject matter involved.
Two additional factors strengthen knowledgeability assessments.
Corroboration of claimed knowledge. Does evidence support the claimed expertise?
Plausibility of claimed understanding. Does the claimed knowledge make sense given their background? Someone with two days on the job claiming deep technical understanding lacks a plausible knowledge-acquisition opportunity. Someone with relevant degrees, certifications, and ten years of experience has a plausible knowledge foundation.
Research on investigative credibility assessment emphasizes inherent plausibility: does the testimony make sense given what we know about the witness’s position, capabilities, and experience? This applies directly to knowledgeability — does claimed knowledge plausibly align with opportunities to acquire it?
Implementing knowledgeability assessment requires shifts in how we prepare and question:
In Planning: Research the technical, professional, or specialized aspects of your case. Consult experts early to understand what knowledge the relevant claims require. Identify what training, experience, or expertise would provide relevant knowledgeability.
In Questioning: Ask about experience, training, and background early. Don’t accept technical claims at face value — probe understanding with “explain that in your own words” and “how do you know that?” questions. Distinguish observation from inference through persistent “what specifically did you observe?” questioning.
In Assessment: Evaluate whether claimed knowledge is plausible given the witness’s background. Consider whether they’re making observations anyone could make, or interpretations requiring expertise they may lack. When witnesses exceed their knowledgeability, note this limitation rather than accepting or rejecting their entire testimony.
In Documentation: Record the basis of knowledgeability assessments. Document training, experience, and demonstrated understanding. When claiming a witness is knowledgeable, specify why. When identifying knowledge limitations, detail what they lack and what expertise is actually required.
In Case Building: Recognize when your witnesses have access but lack knowledgeability, and supplement with expert testimony or consultation. Don’t try to make lay witnesses into experts — acknowledge knowledge limits and bring in actual expertise when needed.
Knowledgeability assessment completes the transformation from behavioral credibility assessment to strategic evaluation. Combined with access assessment, it provides a comprehensive framework:
Could they observe or experience what they claim?
Could they understand or interpret what they observed?
Together, these dimensions replace the failed behavioral approach with logical, evidence-based credibility evaluation. Instead of watching for nervous tics and interpreting demeanor, we question whether witnesses possessed both the opportunity and the expertise necessary for their claims.
This approach is harder than watching body language — it requires subject matter understanding, sophisticated questioning, and careful analysis. But after fifty years of research showing behavioral assessment doesn’t work, we need approaches that do.
Like much of what I write, training is a first step. It is what has moved me beyond my own blind spots, at least some of them. I can provide the training or recommend providers teaching science-based techniques. Do your research, find the right provider, and maximize your training dollar investment. If you are a practitioner or a leader, don’t settle for the same old legacy-based methods that have no empirical evidence supporting them. This is not the time to “do it as we’ve always done it.” If you are in leadership, you carry the same responsibility to know and apply these standards and to find training content that maximizes your team’s effectiveness and accomplishes your mission.
Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor science-based training to your specific needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the subject of this imperative transition, or any training need, please reach out. Additional issues pertaining to interviewing, auditing, and investigations can be found in other blogs and videos that we have produced and are contained in most blocks of instruction that our company presents.
If you have additional questions, comments, or an interview topic you would like me to address, just let me know. In the meantime, be well, stay safe out there, and start investing in a transition that is ethical and effective. It will improve everything you do. It’s time to improve your interviewing and communication skills, not only in your work, but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.
In my next article, I’ll explore the other side of the knowledge equation: how interviewer competence and preparation facilitate disclosure — why witnesses and suspects are more likely to provide truthful information when they perceive the interviewer as knowledgeable and prepared.
Read the previous articles in this series:
Coming next: “How Interviewer Competence Facilitates Disclosure”