The use of anatomically detailed dolls in forensic investigations: Developmental considerations

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 75-87

  Hungerford, Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomically detailed dolls; Cognitive development; Sexual abuse; Young children

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD BEHAVIOR; CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; OBJECT RELATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECALL; ROLE PLAYING; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL AID;

EID: 17344362883     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v05n01_05     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Aldridge N. C. (1998). Strengths and limitations of forensic child sexual abuse interviews with anatomical dolls: An empirical review. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 20, 1-41.
2. 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 and Neglect, 18, 139-153.
3. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Francoeur, E. (2000). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination: Developmental and gender comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 74-83.
4. 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.
5. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
6. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1998). Children's testimony: Applied and basic issues. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 713-774). New York: Wiley.
7. DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71, 329-338.
8. DeLoache, J. S., & Marzolf, D. P. (1995). The use of dolls to interview young children: Issues of symbolic representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 155-173.
9. DeLoache, J. S.. Miller, K. F., & Pierroutsakos, S. L. (1998). Reasoning and problem solving. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 801-850). New York: Wiley.
10. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1997). Anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse assessments: A call for forensically relevant research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, S55-S74.
11. Geddie, L., Dawson, B., & Wuensch, K. (1998). Socioeconomic status and ethnic differences in preschoolers' interactions with anatomically detailed dolls. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 3, 43-52.
12. Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Riddlesberger, M. M., & Kuhn, J. (1997). Children's reactions to and memory for a stressful event: Influences of age, anatomical dolls, knowledge, and parental attachment. Applied Developmental Science, 1 54-75.
13. 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 ill child sexual-abuse assessments. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 199-222.
14. Saywitz, K., Goodman, G., Nicholas, G., & Moan, S. (1991). Children's memory of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5, 682-691.
15. Schneider, W., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). Memory. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 467-522). New York: Wiley.