Assumptions and beliefs about the role of AD dolls in child sexual abuse validation interviews: Are they supported empirically?

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 167-185

  Skinner, Linda J ^a  

^a MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; GENITAL SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; PHYSICAL MODEL; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SEXUAL ABUSE; SEXUAL EDUCATION;

CHILD; CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT; PLAY AND PLAYTHINGS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0029895902     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199621)14:2<167::AID-BSL230>3.0.CO;2-2     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. Allen, M. E., Jones, P. D., & Nash, M. R. (1989, August). Detection of sexual abuse among emotionally disturbed preschoolers: Unique effects of sexual abuse as observed on doll play and other standard assessment procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans.
2. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1988). Guidelines for the clinical evaluation of child and adolescent sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 655-657.
3. American Academy of Pediatrics. (1991). Guidelines for the evaluation of sexual abuse of children. Pediatrics, 87, 254-260.
4. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1990). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children. Unpublished manuscript, Chicago, IL.
5. American Medical Association. (1985). AMA diagnostic and treatment guidelines concerning child abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Medical Association, 254, 796-800.
6. American Psychological Association. (1991). Minutes of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 46, 722.
7. August, R. L., & Forman, B. D. (1989). A comparison of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children's behavioral responses to anatomically correct dolls. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 20, 39-17.
8. Beezley, M. P. (1981). Definition and recognition of sexual child abuse: Historical and cultural perspectives. In M. P. Beezley & C. H. Kempe (Eds.), Sexually abused children and their families (pp. 5-16). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
9. Benedek, E. P., & Schetky, D. H. (1987). Problems in validating allegations of sexual abuse. 1. Factors affecting perception and recall of events. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 912-915.
10. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1986). Using anatomical dolls: Guidelines for interviewing young children in sexual abuse investigations. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina School of Medicine.
11. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988a). Interviewing young children with anatomical dolls. Child Welfare, 67, 337-352.
12. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988b). Research and issues in using anatomical dolls. Annals of Sex Research, 1, 191-204.
13. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988c). Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 171-179.
14. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1994). Exploration of anatomical dolls by nonreferred preschool-aged children: Comparisons by age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 139-153.
15. Boat, B. W., Everson, M. D., & Holland, J. (1990). Maternal perceptions of nonabused young children's behaviors after the children's exposure to anatomical dolls. Child Welfare, 69, 389-400.
16. Britton, H. L., & O'Keefe, M. A. (1991). Use of anatomical dolls in the sexual abuse interview. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 567-573.
17. Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66-77.
18. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Francoeur, E. (1994). Anatomically detailed dolls do not facilitate preschoolers' reports of touching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Pediatric Society, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada.
19. Ceci, S. J. (1993, August). Cognitive and social factors in children's testimony. Master lecture at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.
20. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21. Clausen, J. M. (1985). Using anatomically correct dolls. Law and Order, 33, 40-44.
22. Cohn, D. S. (1991). Anatomical doll play of preschoolers referred for sexual abuse and those not referred. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 455-466.
23. Conerly, S. (1986). Assessment of suspected child sexual abuse. In K. MacFarlane & J. Waterman (Eds.), Sexual abuse of young children (pp. 30-51). New York: Guilford Press.
24. Conte, J., Sorenson, M. A., Fogarty, L., & Rosa, J. D. (1991). Evaluating children's reports of sexual abuse: Results from a survey of professionals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 428-437.
25. Dawson, B., & Geddie, L. (1991, June). Low income, minority preschoolers' behavior with sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
26. Dawson, B., Vaughan, A. R., & Wagner, W. G. (1991). Normal responses to sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 135-152.
27. DeLoache, J. (1990). Young children's understanding of models. In R. Fivush & J. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 94-126). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28. DeLoache, J. (1994). The use of dolls in interviewing young children. In M. Zaragoza, J. Graham, & G. Hall (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 160-178). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29. DeLoache, J., Kolstad, V., & Anderson, K. N. (1991). Physical similarity and young children's understanding of scale model. Child Development, 62, 111-126.
30. Demchak, T. (1987, May-June). Court limits testimony on anatomically correct dolls. Youth Law News, pp. 4-5.
31. DeYoung, M. (1992). Credibility assessment during the sexual abuse of children. In W. O'Donohue, & J. Greer (Eds.), The sexual abuse of children: Volume II: Clinical issues (pp. 256-282). New York: Erlbaum.
32. Edwards, C. A., & Forman, B. D. (1989). Effects of child interview method on accuracy and completeness of sexual abuse information recall. Social Behavior and Personality, 17, 237-247.
33. Elliott, A. N., O'Donohue, W. T., & Nickerson, M. A. (1993). The use of sexually anatomically detailed dolls in the assessment of sexual abuse Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 207-221.
34. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1990). Sexualized doll play among young children: Implications for the use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 736-742.
35. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of the major uses and criticisms of the dolls in child sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 113-129.
36. Everson, M. D., Myers, J. E. B., & White, S. (1993). Proposed APSAC guidelines for the use of anatomical dolls during investigations or evaluations of suspected child sexual abuse. The Advisor, 6, 1-7.
37. Finkel, K. C. (1987). Sexual abuse of children: An update. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 136, 245-252.
38. Fraley, M. C., Nelson, E. C., Wolf, A. W., & Lozoff, B. (1991). Early genital naming. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 12, 301-304.
39. Friedemann, V., & Morgan, M. (1985). Interviewing sexual abuse victims using anatomical dolls: The professional's guidebook. Eugene, OR: Shamrock Press.
40. Friedrich, W. (1993). Sexual behavior in sexually abused children. Violence Update, 3, 1-10.
41. Friedrich, W. N., Grambasch, P., Broughton, D., Kuiper, J., & Beilke, R. L. (1991). Normative sexual behavior in children. Pediatrics, 88, 456-464.
42. Friedrich, W. N., Grambasch, P., Damon, L., Hewitt, S. K., Koverla, C., Lang, R. A., Wolfe, V., & Broughton, D. (1992). Child Sexual Behavior Inventory: Normative and clinical comparisons. Psychological Assessment, 14, 303-311.
43. Friedrich, W. N., Urguiza, A. J., & Beilke, R. L. (1986). Behavior problems in sexually abused young children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 47-57.
44. Fundudis, T. (1989). Annotation: Children's memory and the assessment of possible child sex abuse. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 337-346.
45. Gabriel, R. M. (1985). Anatomically correct dolls in the diagnosis of sexual abuse of children. The Journal of the Melanie Klein Society, 3, 40-51.
46. Glaser, D., & Collins, C. (1989). The response of young, non-sexually abused children to anatomically correct dolls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 547-560.
47. Goldman, R., & Goldman, J. (1982). Children's sexual thinking. Boston, MA: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
48. Goodman, G. S. (1994, August). Update on developmental research on child sexual abuse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
49. Goodman, G. S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61, 1859-1871.
50. Goodman, G. S., & Qarke-Stewart, A. (1991). Suggestibility in children's testimony: Implications for child sexual abuse investigations. In J. L. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections (pp. 92-105). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
51. Goodman, G. S., & Helgeson, V. S. (1988). Children as witnesses: What do they remember? In L. E. A. Walker (Ed.), Handbook on sexual abuse of children: Assessment and treatment issues (pp. 109-135). New York: Springer.
52. Gordon, B. N., Ornstein, P. A., Nida, R. E., Follmer, A., Crenshaw, M. C., & Albert, G. (1993). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 459-474.
53. Gordon, B. N., Schroeder, C. S., & Abrams, J. M. (1990a). Age and social-class differences in children's knowledge of sexuality. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 33-43.
54. Gordon, B. N., Schroeder, C. S., & Abrams, J. M. (1990b). Children's knowledge of sexuality: A comparison of sexually abused and nonabused children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 250-257.
55. Herbert, C. P., Grams, G. D., & Goranson, S. E. (1987). The use of anatomically detailed dolls in an investigative interview. A preliminary study of "non-abused" children. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
56. In re Amber B. and Teela B., 191 Cal. App.3rd 682 (1987).
57. In re Christine C. and Michael C., 191 Cal. App.3rd 676 (1987).
58. Jampole, L., & Weber, M. K. (1987). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 187-192.
59. Jones, D. P. H., & McQuiston, M. (1986). Interviewing the sexually abused child (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect.
60. Kendall-Tackett, K. A. (1992). Professionals' standards of "normal" behavior with anatomical dolls and factors that influence diese standards. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 727-733.
61. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Watson, M. W. (1992). Use of anatomical dolls by Boston-area professionals. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 423-428.
62. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L., & Finkelhor, D. (1992). Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 164-180.
63. Kenyon-Jump, R., Burnette, M. M., & Robertson, M. (1991). Comparison of behaviors of suspected sexually abused and nonsexually abused preschool children using anatomical dolls. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 225-240.
64. Koocher, G. P., Goodman, G. S., White, C. S., Friedrich, W. N., Sivan, A. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (1995). Psychological science and the use of anatomically detailed dolls in child sexual-abuse assessments. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 199-222.
65. Lamb, S., & Coakley, M. (1993). "Normal" childhood sexual play and games: Differentiating play from abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 515-526.
66. Leventhal, J. M., Hamilton, J., Rekedal, S., Tebano-Micci, A., & Eyster, C. (1989). Anatomically correct dolls used in interviews of young children suspected of having been sexually abused. Pediatrics, 84, 901-906.
67. Lewis, J. E. (1992, August). Sexually traumatized children? False positive from use of "anatomical dolls." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C.
68. Levy, H. B., Markovic, J., Kalinowski, M. N., Ahart, S., & Torres, H. (1995). Child sexual abuse interviewers: The use of anatomic dolls and the reliability of information. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 334-353.
69. Maan, C. (1991). Assessment of sexually abused children with anatomically detailed dolls: A critical review. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 9, 43-51.
70. Maan, C. (1994). Current issues in using anatomical dolls. Violence Update, 4, pp. 1, 2, 4.
71. MacFarlane, K., & Krebs, S. (1986). Techniques of interviewing and evidence gathering. In K. MacFarlane & J. Waterman (Eds.), Sexual abuse of young children: Evaluation and treatment (pp. 67-100). New York: Guilford Press.
72. Porter, R. (1984). Child sexual abuse within the family. London: Tavistock.
73. Quinn, K. M. (1988). The credibility of children's allegations of sexual abuse. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 6, 181-199.
74. Raskin, D. C., & Yuille, J. C. (1988). Problems in evaluating interviews of children in sexual abuse cases. In S. J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Children take the stand: Adult perceptions of children's testimony (pp. 184-207). New York: Springer-Verlag.
75. Realmuto, G. M., Jensen, J. B., & Wescoe, S. (1990). Specificity and sensitivity of sexually anatomically correct dolls in substantiating abuse: A pilot study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 743-746.
76. Rutter, M. (1971). Normal psychosexual development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 11, 259-283.
77. Saywitz, K. F., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. (1991). Children's memories of physical examinations involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 682-691.
78. Schetky, D. H., & Broverman, H. (1985, October). Faulty assessment of child sexual abuse: Legal and emotional ramifications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry and the Law, New Mexico.
79. Schor, D. P., & Sivan, A. B. (1989). Interpreting children's labels for sex-related body parts of anatomically explicit dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 523-531.
80. Schultz, L. (1989). One hundred cases of unfounded child sexual abuse: A survey and recommendation. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 1, 29-35.
81. Sgroi, S. M. (1982). Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
82. Shamroy, J. A. (1987). Interviewing the sexually abused child with anatomically correct dolls. Social Work, 32, 165-166.
83. Sivan, A. B., Schor, D. P., Koeppl, G. K, & Noble, L. D. (1988). Interaction of normal children with anatomical dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 295-304.
84. Skinner, L. J. (1994, June). Anatomical dolls and sexual abuse assessments: Significant research and clinical methodological differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
85. Skinner, L. J., & Berry, K. K. (1993). Anatomically detailed dolls and the evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: Psychometric considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 399-421.
86. Skinner, L. J., Giles, M. K., & Berry, K. K. (1994). Anatomically detailed dolls and validation interviews: Standardization, norms, and training issues. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 21, 45-72.
87. Spaulding, W. (1987). Interviewing child victims of sexual exploitation. Washington, DC: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
88. State v. Huss, 596 N.W. 2d 290 (Minn. 1993).
89. Steward, M., & Steward, J. (1989). The development of a model interview for young child victims of sexual abuse: Comparing the effectiveness of anatomical dolls, drawings, and videographics. Final Report to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, DC.
90. Steward, M. S., Steward, D. S., Lloyd, D., & Lyons, P. (1991, August). Potential uses and abuses of computer-assisted interviewing. In G. S. Goodman (Chair), Assessment, diagnosis, and support of child sexual abuse victims. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
91. Templeton, S., & Weber, C. (1985). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abused and nonabused children with anatomically correct dolls. Unpublished manuscript, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
92. Walker, L. E. D. (1988). New techniques for assessment and evaluation for child sexual abuse victims: Using anatomically "detailed" dolls and videotape procedures. In L. E. D. Walker (Ed.), Handbook in sexual abuse of children: Assessment and treatment issues (pp. 175-197). New York: Springer.
93. Walsh, G. (1987). Investigative interviewing and the use of anatomically explicit dolls in the detection of sexual abuse of children. Law Society Journal, 25, 48-53.
94. Wescott, H., Davies, G., Clifford, B. (1989). The use of anatomical dolls in child witness interviews. Adoption & Fostering, 13, 6-13.
95. White, S. (1988). Should investigatory use of anatomical dolls be defined by the courts? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 471-475.
96. White, S., Strom, G., Santilli, G., & Halpin, B. (1986). Interviewing young sexual abuse victims with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 519-529.
97. Wimberly, L. (1992). The effects of a false accusation of sexual abuse on the spouse of the accused. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 4, 141-143.
98. Wolfner, G., Faust, D., & Dawes, R. M. (1993). The use of anatomically detailed dolls in sexual abuse evaluations: The state of the science. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 2, 1-11.
99. Yates, A., & Terr, L. (1988). Anatomically correct dolls: Should they be used as the basis for expert testimony? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 254-257.