Anatomical dolls: Their use in assessment of children who may have been sexually abused

Journal of Child Sexual Abuse

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 1-21

  Faller, Kathleen Coulborn ^a,b,c  

^a Department of Social Work ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c Hasbro Early Assessment Program   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomical dolls; Anatomically detailed dolls; Child sexual abuse; Sexual abuse assessment

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL DOLL; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEMORY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVALENCE; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; REVIEW; SEXUAL ABUSE; TECHNICAL AID; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 27744533885     PISSN: 10538712     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J070v14n03_01     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Aldridge, N. (1998). Strengths and limitations of forensic child sexual abuse interviews with anatomical dolls: An empirical review. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 20(1), 1-41.
2. Aman, C., & Goodman G. (1987, April). Children's use of anatomically correct dolls. Paper presented at the Symposium of the Society for Research in Child Development Convention, Baltimore.
3. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). (1988). Guidelines for the Clinical Evaluation of Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(5), 655-657.
4. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1997). Practice parameters for the forensic evaluation of children and adolescents who may have been physically or sexually abused. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 37S-56S.
5. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1990). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children. Available from APSAC at http://www.APSAC.org
6. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1995). Guidelines for the use of anatomical dolls. Available from APSAC at http://www.APSAC.org
7. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1997). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in children (2nd ed.). Available from APSAC at http://www.APSAC.org
8. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (2002). Guidelines on investigative interviewing in cases of alleged child abuse. Available from APSAC at http://www.APSAC.org
9. American Psychological Association. (1991). Statement on the use of anatomically detailed dolls in forensic evaluations. APA Council of Representatives. Available from the American Psychological Association.
10. August, R., & Foreman, B. (1989). A comparison of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children's behavioral responses to anatomically correct dolls. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 20(1), 39-47.
11. Baker-Ward, L., Gordon, B., Ornstein, P., Larus, D., & Clubb, P. (1993). Young children's long-term retention of a pediatric examination. Child Development, 64, 1519-1533.
12. Bartlett-Simpson, B., Kneeshaw, S., & Schaffer, D. (1993). The use of anatomical dolls to assess child sexual abuse. International Journal of Play Therapy, 2(2), 35-51.
13. Bauer, E. (1994). Diagnostic validity of the use of an instrument for assessing behaviors of children with anatomical dolls. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (12-B), 6441 (UMI No. 19961201).
14. Bays, J. (1990). Are the genitalia of anatomical dolls distorted? Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 171-175.
15. Boat, B., & Everson, M. (1988a). Interviewing young children with anatomical dolls. Child Welfare, 67(4), 336-352.
16. Boat, B., & Everson, M. (1988b). The use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 171-79.
17. Boat, B., & Everson, M. (1993). The use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations: Current research and practice. In G. Goodman & B. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses (pp. 47-70). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Boat, B., & Everson, M. (1994). Exploration of anatomical dolls by non-referred pre-school-aged children: Comparisons by age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(2), 139-154.
19. Boat, B., & Everson, M. (1996). Concerning practices using anatomical dolls. Child Maltreatment, 2(1), 96-104.
20. Boat, B., Everson, M., & Amaya-Jackson, L. (1996). Consistency of children's sexualized or avoidant reactions to anatomical dolls: A pilot study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(10), 89-104.
21. Boat, B., Everson, M., & Holland, J. (1990). Maternal perceptions of nonabused children's behaviors after the children's exposure to anatomical dolls. Child Welfare, 69(5), 389-400.
22. Bourg, W., Broderick, R., Flagor, R., Kelly, D., Ervin, D., & Butler, J. (1999). A child interviewer's guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Britton, H., & O'Keefe, M. A. (1991). Use of nonanatomical dolls in the sexual abuse interview. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 567-573.
24. Bruck, M., Ceci, S., 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(2), 95-109.
25. Bruck, M., Ceci, S., & Francoeur, E. (2000). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination: Developmental & gender comparisons. Journal of Applied Experimental Psychology, 6(1), 74-83.
26. Carlson, R. (1995). A critical analysis of the use of anatomically detailed dolls in the assessment of child sexual abuse. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(12-B), 5561. (UMI No. 19970101)
27. Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
28. Cohn, D. (1991). Anatomical doll play of preschoolers referred for sexual abuse and those not referred. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15(4), 455-66.
29. Conte, J., 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(3), 428-437.
30. Davies, D., Cole, J., Albertella, G., McCulloch, L., Allen, K., & Kekevian, L. (1996). A model for conducting forensic interviews with child victims of abuse. Child Maltreatment, 1(2), 189-199.
31. Davey, R., & Hill, J. (1999). The variability of practice in interviews used by professionals to investigate child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(6), 571-578.
32. Dawson, B., Vaughan, A., & Wagner, W. (1992). Normal responses to sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 7(2), 135-152.
33. DeLoache, J. (1995). The use of dolls in interviewing young children. In M. Zaragoza, J. Graham, G. Hall, R. Hirschman, & Y. Ben-Porath (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 160-178). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34. DeLoache, J., & Marzolf, D. (1995). The use of dolls to interview young children: Issues of symbolic representation. Journal of Experimental Clinical Psychology: Special Issue: Early Memory, 60(1), 155-173.
35. De Marneff, D. (1994). Gender recognition and gender labeling: An empirical study of toddlers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(11-B), 5959. (UMI No. 19961101)
36. De Marneff, D. (1997). Bodies and words: A study of young children's genital and gender knowledge. Gender & Psychoanalysis, 2(1), 3-33.
37. Elliott, A., O'Donohue, W., & Nickerson, M. (1993). The use of sexually anatomically detailed dolls in the assessment of sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(3), 207-221.
38. Everson, M., & Boat, B. (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(5), 736-42.
39. Everson, M., & Boat, B. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of the major doll uses and related criticisms. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(2), 113-130.
40. Everson, M., & Boat, B. (1997). Anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse assessments: A call for forensically relevant research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(Spec. Issue), S55-S74.
41. Everson, M., & Boat, B. (2002). The utility of anatomical dolls and drawings in child forensic interviews. In M. Eisen, J. Quas, & G. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 383-408). Laurence Erlbaum Publishers, Inc.
42. Faller, K. C. (1993). Child sexual abuse: Assessment and intervention. Washington, DC: USDHHS, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
43. Faller, K. C. (1996). Evaluating children suspected of having been sexually abused: The APSAC study guides 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44. Faller, K. C. (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Fivush, R. (1993). Developmental perspectives on autobiographical recall. In G.S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 1-24). New York: Guilford Publications.
46. Friedrich, W. (1993). Sexual victimization and sexual behavior in children: A review of recent literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(1), 59-66.
47. Friedrich, W. (1999). Child sexual behavior inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
48. Friedrich, W., Beilke, R., & Urquiza, A. (1988). Behavior problems in young sexually abused boys: A comparison study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 21-28.
49. Friedrich, W. N., Fisher, J., Dittner, C., Acton, R., Berliner, L., Butler, J. et al. (2001). Child sexual behavior inventory: Normative, psychiatric and sexual abuse comparisons. Child Maltreatment, 6, 37-49.
50. Gardner, R. (1992). True and false accusations of child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
51. Gardner, R. (1995). Protocols for sex abuse evaluation. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
52. Geddie, L. (1994). SES and ethnic differences in nonabused preschoolers' interactions with anatomically detailed dolls. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(2-B), 590. (UMI No. 19970201)
53. Geddie, L., Dawson, B., & Weunsch, K. (1998). Socioeconomic status and ethnic differences in preschoolers' interactions with anatomically detailed dolls. Child Maltreatment, 3(1), 43-52.
54. Gier v. Educational Services, 845 F. Supp. 1342 (1994).
55. Gier v. Lute, 66 F.3d 940 (1995).
56. Glaser, D., & Collins, C. (1989). The response of young, non-sexually abused children to anatomically correct dolls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30(4), 547-560.
57. Goodman, G., & Aman, C. (1991). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61, 1859-1871.
58. Goodman, G., Quas, J., Batterman-Faunce, J., Riddelsberger, M., & Kuhn, J. (1994). Predictors of accurate and inaccurate memories of traumatic events experienced in childhood. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 269-294.
59. Goodman, G., Quas, J., Batterman-Faunce, J., Riddelsberger, M., & Kuhn, J. (1997). Children's reaction to and memory of a stressful event: Influences of age, anatomical dolls, knowledge, and parental attachment. Applied Developmental Science, 1(2), 54-75.
60. Gordon, B., Ornstein, P., Nida, R., Follmer, A., Crenshaw, C., & Albert, G. (1993). Does the use of dolls facilitate children's memories of visits to the doctor? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 459-474.
61. Grossman Froum, A., & Kendall-Tackett, K. (1998). Law enforcement officers' approaches to evaluations of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(9), 939-942.
62. Hirsch, B. (1999). A comparison of normal sexual development and sexual abuse in children: Review, critique, and recommendations for training. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(2-B) 0855 (UMI No. 20000101).
63. Hunsley, J., Lee, C., & Wood, J. (2003). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. In S. Lilienfield & S. Lynn (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 39-76). New York: Guilford Press.
64. Jampole, L., & Webber, M. (1987). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abuse and non-sexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 187-92.
65. Jedel, R. (1994). The clinical assessment of child sexual abuse of preschool children using anatomically detailed dolls. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(3-B), 1186. (UMI No. 19970401).
66. Johnson, B. (2000). Anatomically detailed dolls (new name) or anatomically correct dolls (old name). Retrieved August 6, 2003 from http://falseallegations.com/dolls.htm
67. Katz, S., Schoenfeld, D., Levanthal, J., & Cicchetti, D. (1995). The accuracy of children's reports with anatomically correct dolls. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16(2), 71-76.
68. Kendall-Tackett, K., & Watson, M. (1991). Factors that influence professionals' perceptions of behavioral indicators of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(3), 385-95.
69. Kendall-Tackett, K., & Watson, M. (1992). Use of anatomical dolls by Boston-area professionals. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(3), 423-428.
70. Kenyon-Jump, R., Burnette, M., & Robertson, M. (1991). Comparison of behaviors of suspected sexually abused and nonabused preschool children using anatomical dolls. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13(3), 225-240.
71. Klorer, G. (1995). Use of anatomical dolls in play and art therapy with sexually abused children. Arts in Psychotherapy: Special Issues: Sexual Abuse, 22(5), 467-473.
72. Koocher, G., Goodman, G., White, S., & Friedrich, W. (1995). Psychological science and the use of anatomically detailed dolls. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 199-222.
73. Kuehnle, K. (1998). Child sexual abuse evaluations: The scientist-practitioner model. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 5-20.
74. Lamb, M., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K., Boat, B., & Everson, M. (1996). Investigative interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims with and without anatomical dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 1251-1259.
75. Leventhal, J., 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(5), 900-906.
76. Levy, H., Markovic, J., Kalinowski, M. N., & Ahart, S. (1995). Child sexual abuse interviews: The use of anatomic dolls and the reliability of information. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(3), 334-353.
77. Lie, G. Y., & Inman, A. (1991). The use of anatomical dolls as assessment and evidentiary tools. Social Work, 36(5), 396-398.
78. Lyon, T. (2002). Scientific support for expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation. In J. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse (pp. 107-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. Maan, C. (1991). Assessment of sexually abused children with anatomically detailed dolls: A critical review. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 43-51.
80. Marvasti, J. (2001). Using anatomical dolls in psychotherapy with sexualized children. In H. Kaduson & C. Schaefer (Eds.), 101 more favorite play therapy techniques (pp. 312-316). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
81. Merchant, L., & Toth, P. (2001). Child interview guide. Seattle, WA: Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress.
82. Morgan, M. (1995). How to interview sexual abuse victims, including the use of anatomical dolls. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
83. Moyer, B. (1994). The suggestiveness of children's behaviors and verbalizations in anatomical doll interviews. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(10-B), 5398. (UMI No. 19960901)
84. Myers, J. E. B. (1994). The backlash: Child protection under fire. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
85. Myers, J. E. B. (2004). A history of child protection in America. Philadelphia: Xlibris.
86. Poole, D., & Lamb, M. (1998). Investigative interviews of children. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
87. Quas, J., Goodman, G., Bidrose, S., Pipe, M., Craw, S., & Ablin, D. (1999). Emotion and memory: Children's long-term remembering, forgetting, and suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 235-270.
88. Realmuto, G., Jensen, J., & Wescoe, S. (1990). Specificity and sensitivity of sexually anatomically correct dolls in substantiating abuse: A pilot study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(5), 743-746.
89. Realmuto, G., & 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 & Neglect, 16(5), 719-725.
90. Samra, J., & Yuille, J. (1996). Anatomically neutral dolls: Their effects in the memory and suggestibility of 4- to 6-year-old eyewitnesses. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(12), 1261-1272.
91. Saywitz, K., Goodman, G., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. (1989, April). Children's memories of genital examinations: Implications for cases of child sexual assault. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Kansas City, MO.
92. Saywitz, K., Goodman, G., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. (1991). Children's memory for a genital examination: Implications for child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 682-691.
93. Schor, D., & Sivan, A. (1989). Interpreting children's labels for sex-related body parts and anatomically explicit dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13(4), 523-531.
94. Simkins, L., & Renier, A. (1996). An analytical review of the empirical literature on children's play with anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(1), 21-45.
95. Sivan, A., Schor, D., Koeppl, G., & Noble, L. (1988). Interaction of normal children with anatomical dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 295-304.
96. Skinner, L. (1996). Assumptions and beliefs about the role of AD dolls in child sexual abuse validation interviews: Are they supported empirically? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14(2), 167-185.
97. Skinner, L., & Berry, K. (1993). Anatomically detailed dolls and the evaluation of child sexual abuse evaluations: Psychometric considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 17(4), 399-421.
98. Skinner, L., & Giles, M. (1993). Sixteen reasons for not using anatomically detailed dolls in sexual abuse validation interviews. In L. VandeCreek (Ed.). Innovations in clinical practice: A sourcebook, 12 (pp. 505-518). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
99. Skinner, L., Giles, M., & Berry, K. (1994). Anatomically detailed dolls and validation interviews: Standardization, norms, and training issues. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 21(1-2), 45-72.
100. State of Michigan. (1998). Forensic interview protocol. FIA Pub 779 (8-98). Lansing, MI: Governor's Task Force on Children's Justice and the Michigan Family Independence Agency.
101. Steward, M. (1989, November). Final report of grant #90CA1332; The development of a model interview for young child victims of sexual abuse. Davis. CA: University of California Dept. of Psychiatry.
102. Steward, M. S., Steward, D. S., Farquhar, L., Myers, J., Welker, J., Joye, N. et al. (1996). Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monograph series of the Society for research on Child Development (SRCD). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
103. Summit, R. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 177-193.
104. Sutherland, B. (1994). The relationship between previous sexual behavior and nonabused children's behavior dining assessment using anatomically detailed dolls. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (2-B), 608. (UMI No. 19970201).
105. U.S. v. Gillespie, 852 F2d 475 (1988).
106. Vizard, E. (1991). Interviewing children suspected of being sexually abused: A review of theory and practice. In. C. Hollin (ed.), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims (pp. 117-148). New York: John Wiley.
107. Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1988). Accusations of child sex abuse. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
108. Weill, R., Dawson, B., & Range, L. (1999). Behavioral and verbal responses of unabused externalizing children to anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 14(1), 61-70.
109. White, S. (1986). Uses and abuses of the sexually anatomically correct dolls. APA Division of Child, Youth, and Family Services Newsletter, 9(1), 3-4.
110. White, S. (1988). A review of clinical practice and research data on anatomical dolls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(4), 430-442.
111. White, S. (2000). Using anatomically detailed dolls in interviewing preschoolers. In K. Gitlin-Weiner (Ed.), Play diagnosis and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 210-227). New York: John Wiley.
112. White, S., Strom, G., & Quinn, K. (n.d.). Guidelines for interviewing preschoolers with sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.
113. White, S., Strom, G., Santilli, G., & Halpin, B. (1986). Interviewing young sexual abuse victims with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 510-519.
114. Wolfner G., Faust, D., & Dawes, R. (1994). The use of anatomically detailed dolls in sexual abuse evaluations. Applied & Preventative Psychology, 2(1), 1-11.
115. Yates, A., & Terr, L. (1988). Anatomically correct dolls: Should they be used as a basis for expert testimony? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 254-257.
116. Yuille, J. (2002). The step-wise interview: Guidelines for interviewing children. Available from John C. Yuille, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of British Colombia.