Socioeconomic status and ethnic differences in preschoolers' interactions with anatomically detailed dolls

Child Maltreatment

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 43-52

  Geddie, Lane ^a,c   Dawson, Brenda ^b   Weunsch, Karl ^a  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NeuroMedical Center   (United States)

^c TEDI BEAR: Children's Advocacy Ctr   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17344364137     PISSN: 10775595     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077559598003001004     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1995). Use of anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse assessments. Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Psychological Association. (1990, November). Statement on the use of anatomically detailed dolls in forensic evaluations (Supplemental Agenda Item No, 2). Washington, DC: Author.
3. 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, 39-47.
4. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988). Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 171-179.
5. 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.
6. Cohn, D. S. (1991). Anatomical doll play of preschoolers referred for sexual abuse and those not referred. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 455-466.
7. Conners, C. K. (1985). The Conners rating scales: Instruments for the assessment of childhood psychopathology. Unpublished manuscript, Children's Hospital National Medical Center, Washington, DC.
8. Dawson, B., Geddie, L., & Wagner, W. G. (1996). Low income preschoolers' behavior with sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 363-378.
9. Dawson, B., Vaughan, A. R., & Wagner, W. G. (1992). Normal responses to sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 135-151.
10. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1990). Sexualized doll play among young children: Implications for the use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 736-742.
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 and Neglect, 18, 113-129.
12. Gardner, R. A. (1994). Differentiating between true and false sex-abuse accusations in child-custody disputes. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 21, 1-20.
13. 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.
14. Hartmann, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interob-server reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103-116.
15. Hollingshead, E. F. (1975). The four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT.
16. Jampole, L., & Weber, M. K. (1987). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 187-192.
17. Kendall-Tackett, K. A. (1992). Beyond anatomical dolls: Professionals' use of other play therapy techniques. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 139-142.
18. Kenyon-Jump, R., Burnette, M., & Robertson, M. (1991). Comparison of behaviors of suspected sexually abused and nonsexually abused preschool children using anatomical dolls. Journal of Psychopatholagy and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 225-240.
19. 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.
20. Realmuto, G. M., & Wescoe, S. (1992). Agreement among professionals about a child's sexual abuse status: Interviews with sexually anatomically correct dolls as indicators of abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 719-725.
21. Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed., rev.). San Diego, CA: Author.
22. Saywitz, K.J., & Moan-Hardie, S. (1994). Reducing the potential for distortion of childhood memories. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 408-425.
23. Schachter, F. F., Sandberg, S., & Rutter, M. (1986). Agreement between teacher's ratings and observations of hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 331-345.
24. Sivan, A. B., Schor, D. P., Koeppl, G. K., & Noble, L. D. (1988). Interaction of normal children with anatomical dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 295-304.
25. Wechsler, D. (1989). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. NewVbrk: Psychological Corporation.
26. White, S., Strom, G., Santilli, G., & Halpin, B. (1986). Interviewing young sexual abuse victims with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 519-529.
27. Wilson, M.N. (1989). Child development in the context of the Black extended family. American Psychologist, 39, 79-89.
28. Yuille, J. C. (1988). The systematic assessment of children's testimony. Canadian Psychology, 29(3), 247-262.