Back to the future: A comment on the use of anatomical dolls in forensic interviews

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 63-74

  Dickinson, Jason J ^a   Poole, Debra A ^b   Bruck, Maggie ^c  

^a MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomically detailed dolls; Child abuse; Forensic investigation

Indexed keywords

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

EID: 17344373618     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v05n01_04     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. American Prosecutors Research Institute (2003). Finding words: Half a nation by 2010. Alexandria, VA: Author.
2. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1996). Concerning practices of interviewers when using anatomical dolls in child protective services investigations. Child Maltreatment, 1, 96-104.
3. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988). Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 171-179.
4. 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.
5. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children's memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 419-439.
6. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Francoeur, E. (1999). The accuracy of mothers' memories of conversations with their preschool children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 89-106.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Bruck, M., Ceci. S. J., Melnyk, L., & Finkelberg, D. (1999, April). The effect of interviewer bias on the accuracy of children's reports and interviewer's reports. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
10. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11. Chiong, C. (2003, October). Learning the A B C's: Do some kinds of picture books help or hinder young children's learning? Paper presented at the meeting of the Cognitive Development Society, Park City, UT.
12. DeLoache, J. S. (1995). Early understanding and use of symbols: The model model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 109-113.
13. DeLoache, J. S, Anderson, K., & Smith, C. M. (1995, March). Interviewing children about real-life events. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
14. 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.
15. 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 & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 736-742.
16. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (2002). The utility of anatomical dolls and drawings in child forensic interviews. In M. L. Eisen, J. A. Quas, & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 383-408). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Glaser, D., & Collins, C. (1989). The response of young, non-sexually abused children to anatomically correct dolls. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 30, 547-560.
18. Goodman, G. S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61 1859-1871.
19. Gordon, B. N., Ornstein, P. A., Nida, R. E., Follmer, A. Creshaw, M. C., & Albert, G. (1993). Does the use of dolls facilitate children's memory of visits to the doctor? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 459-474.
20. Holmes, L. S. (2004). Using anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse forensic interviews. Update, 13 (8). (Newsletter of the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse,
21. 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.
22. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Boat, B., & Everson, M. D. (1996). Investigative interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims with and without anatomical dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20 1251-1259.
23. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Accuracy of investigators' verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 699-708.
24. Malloy, L. C., & Poole, D. A. (2002, March). The use of time line representations in forensic interviewing of children. In A. R. Warren & D. A. Poole (Chairs), Forensic interviews with young children: Continuing challenges and controversies. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Austin, TX.
25. Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26. Protheroe, P. (1993). Are picture books harmful? New Scientist, 138, 44-45.
27. Salmon, K. (2001). Remembering and reporting by children: The influence of cues and props. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 267-300.
28. Santtila, P., Korkman, J., & Sandnabba, N. K. (2004). Effects of interview phase, repeated interviewing, presence of a support person, and anatomically detailed dolls on child sexual abuse interviews. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 10, 21-35.
29. Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). Children's memories of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59, 682-691.
30. State of Michigan Governor's Task Force on Children's Justice and Family Independence Agency. (1998). Forensic interviewing protocol Lansing, MI: Family Independence Agency.
31. Steward, M. S., & Steward, D. S. (with L. Farquhar, J. E. B. Myers, M. Reinhart, J. Welker, N. Joye, J. Driskill, & J. Morgan) (1996). Interviewing young children about body touching and handling. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61 (4-5, Serial No. 248).
32. Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations? In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 177-192). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
33. Warren, A. R. & Woodall, C. E. (1999). The reliability of hearsay testimony: How well do interviewers recall their interviews with children? Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 5, 355-371.