Investigative interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims with and without anatomical dolls

Child Abuse and Neglect

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 1996, Pages 1251-1259

  Lamb, Michael E ^a   Hershkowitz, Irit ^a   Sternberg, Kathleen J ^a   Boat, Barbara ^b   Everson, Mark D ^c  

^a EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomical dolls; Interview processes; Investigative interviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH ROUTE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PSYCHOANALYSIS; SEXUAL ABUSE;

EID: 0030561502     PISSN: 01452134     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00121-4     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1995). Use of anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse assessments. Chicago, IL: Author.
2. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988). Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 171-179.
3. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1995, April). Interview errors in the use of anatomical dolls in child protective services investigations. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
4. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1996). Concerning practices of interviewers when using anatomical dolls in child protective services investigations. Child Maltreatment, 2, 96-108.
5. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Francoeur, E., & Renick, A. (1995). Anatomically detailed dolls do not facilitate preschoolers' reports of a pediatric examination involving genital touching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 95-109.
6. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Conte, J. R., Sorenson, E., Fogarty, L., & Dalla Rosa, J. (1991). Evaluating children's reports of sexual abuse: Results from a survey of professionals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 428-437.
8. Cutshall, J. L., & Yuille, J. C. (1990). Field studies of eyewitness memory of actual crimes. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods for investigation and evidence (pp. 97-124). New York: Springer.
9. Dent, H. R. (1982). The effects of interviewing strategies on the results of interviews with child witnesses. In A. Trankel (Ed.), Reconstructing the past (pp. 279-297). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
10. Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 41-51.
11. 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.
12. Goodman, G. S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61, 1859-1871.
13. Goodman, G. S., Hirschman, J., Hepps, D., & Rudy, L. (1991). Children's memory for stressful events. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 37, 109-158.
14. 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.
15. Jones, D. P. H., & McQuiston, M. G. (1988). Interviewing the sexually abused child. London, England: Gaskell.
16. Katz, S., Schonfeld, D. J., Carter, A. S., Leventhal, J. M., & Cicehetti, D. V. (1995). The accuracy of children's reports with anatomically correct dolls. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 71-76.
17. Lamb, M. E. (1994). The investigation of child sexual abuse: An interdisciplinary consensus statement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 1021-1028.
18. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hovav, M., Manor, T., & Yudilevitch, L. (1996). Effects of investigative utterance types on Israeli children's responses. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 627-637.
19. Memorandum of Good Practice (On video-recorded interviews with child witnesses for criminal proceedings). (1992). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
20. Perry, N. W., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). The child witness. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Raskin, D. C., & Yuille, J. C. (1989). Problems of evaluating interviews of children in sexual abuse cases. In S. Ceci, D. F. Ross, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Perspectives on children's testimony (pp. 184-207). New York: Springer-Verlag.
22. Saywitz, K., Goodman, G., Nicholas, G., & Moan, S. (1991). Children's memory of a physical examination involving genital touching: Implications for reports on child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5, 682-691.
23. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., Redlich, A., & Sunshine, N. (1996). The relationship between investigative utterance types and the informativeness of child witnesses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 439-451.
24. Steward, M., & Steward, D. (in press). Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.
25. White, S., Strom, G., Santilli, G., & Halpin, B. (1986). Interviewing young children with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 519-529.
26. Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291-301.
27. Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1989). Analysis of the statement's of victims, witnesses, and suspects. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 175-191). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.