Anatomical Dolls in Child Sexual Abuse Assessments: A Call for Forensically Relevant Research

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 11, Issue 7, 1997, Pages

  Everson, Mark D ^a,b   Boat, Barbara W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4143087066     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199712)11:73.0.CO;2-P     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (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.
2. American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children (1990). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children. Chicago: Author.
3. American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children (1995). Practice guidelines: Use of anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse assessment. Chicago: Author.
4. American Psychological Association (1991). Statement on the use of anatomically detailed dolls in forensic evaluations. APA Council of Representatives. Unpublished manuscript.
5. August, R. L. and Forman, B. D. (1989). A comparison of sexually and nonsexually abused children's behavioral responses to anatomically correct dolls. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 20, 39-47.
6. Baker-Ward, L., Gordon, B. N., Ornstein, P. A., Larus, D. M. and Clubb, P. A. (1993). Young children's long-term retention of a pediatric examination. Child Development, 64, 1519-1533.
7. Boat, B. W., Everson, M. D. and Amaya-Jackson, L. (1996). Consistency of children's sexualized or avoidant reactions to anatomical dolls: A pilot study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(1), 89-104.
8. Boat, B. W., Everson, M. D. and Holland, J. (1990). Maternal perceptions of nonabused young children's behavior after the children's exposure to anatomical dolls. Child Welfare, 59(5), 389-400.
9. Boat, B. W and Everson, M. D. (1993). The use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations: Current research and practice. In G. S. Goodman and B. L. Bottoms (Eds), Child Victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 47-70). New York: Guilford Press.
10. Boat, B. W. and Everson, M. D. (1988). Interviewing young children with anatomical dolls. Child Welfare, 68(4), 337-352.
11. Boat, B. W. and 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(2), 139-153.
12. Boat, B. W. and Everson, M. D. (1996). Concerning practices of interviewers when using anatomical dolls in child protective services investigations. Child Maltreatment, 1(2), 96-104.
13. Bruck, M. and Ceci, S. J. (1996). Issues in the scientific validation of interviews with young children. Commentary on Steward and Steward (1996) Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monograph Series for the Research in Child Development, 204-213.
14. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Francoeur, E. and Renick, A. (1995). Anatomically detailed dolls do not facilitate preschooler's reports of a pediatric examination involving genital touching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 95-109.
15. Ceci, S. J. and Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16. Cohn, D. (1991). Anatomical doll play of preschoolers referred for sexual abuse and those not referred. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 455-466.
17. Dawson, B. and Geddie, L. (1991). Low income, minority preschoolers' behavior with sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Unpublished manuscript.
18. Dawson, B., Vaughn, A. R. and Wagner, W. F. (1992). Normal responses to sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 7(2), 135-152.
19. DeLoache, J. (1995). The use of dolls in interviewing young children. In Zaragoza, M. S., Graham, J. R., Hall, G. H., Hirshman, R. & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child Witness. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Everson, M. D. (1997a). Typology of leading questions in child forensic interviewing. Unpublished manuscript.
21. Everson, M. D. (1997b). Understanding bizarre, improbable, and fantastic elements in children's accounts of abuse. Child Maltreatment, 2(2), 134-149.
22. Everson, M. D. and Boat, B. W. (1989). False allegations of abuse by children and adolescents. Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(2), 230-235.
23. Everson, M. D. and 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.
24. Everson, M. D. and Boat, B. W. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of major doll uses and related criticisms, Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 113-129.
25. Everson, M. D., Boat, B. W. and Sanfilippo, M. (1994). Functional uses of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations. Unpublished manuscript.
26. Faller, K. (1994). Child sexual abuse allegations: How to decide when they are true. Violence Update, 4(6), 1-11.
27. Faller, K. and Corwin, D. L. (1994). Children's interview statements and behaviors: Role in identifying sexually abused children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(1), 71-82.
28. Fivush, R. (1993). Developmental perspectives on autobiographical recall. In G. S. Goodman and B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 1-24). New York: Guilford Press.
29. Gabriel, R. M. (1985). Anatomically correct dolls in the diagnosis of sexual abuse of children. Journal of the Melanie Klein Society, 3, 40-50.
30. Gardner, R. A. (1989). The parent alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sexual abuse. Cresskill: Creative Therapeutics.
31. Gardner, R. A. (1992). True and false accusations of child sexual abuse. Cresskill: Creative Therapeutics.
32. Glaser, D. and Collins, C. (1989). The response of young, non-sexually abused children to anatomically correct dolls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 547-560.
33. Goodman, G. S. and Aman, C. (1990). Children's use on anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61, 1859-1871.
34. Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Riddlesberger, M. M. and Kuhn, J. (1994). Predictors of accurate and inaccurate memories of traumatic events experienced in childhood. Consciousness and Cognition. 3, 269-294.
35. Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Riddlesberger, M. M. and Kuhn, J. (in press). Children's reactions to and memory for a stressful event: Influences of age, anatomical dolls. knowledge, and parental attachment. Applied Developmental Sciences.
36. Hewitt, S. K. (in press). Small voices: Assessing allegations of sexual abuse in preschool children. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Jampole, L. and Weber, M. K. (1987). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abused and non-sexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 187-192.
38. Jones, D. C., Swift, D. J. and Johnson, M. S. (1988). Nondeliberate memory for a novel event among preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 24, 641-645.
39. Katz, S., Schonfeld, D. J., Carter, A. S., Leventhal, J. M. and Cicchetti, D. V. (1995). The accuracy of children's reports with anatomically correct dolls. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 16(2), 71-76.
40. Koocher, G. P., Goodman, G. S., White, C. S., Friedrich, W. N., Sivan, A. B. and Reynolds, C. R. (1995). Psychological science and the use of anatomically detailed dolls in child sexual abuse assessments. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 199-222.
41. Leventhal, J. M., Hamilton, J., Rekedal, S., Tebano-Micci, A. and Eyster, D. (1989). Anatomically correct dolls used in interviews of young children suspected of having been sexually abused. Pediatrics, 84(5), 900-906.
42. McGough, L. S. (1996). Achieving real reform: The case for American interview protocols. Commentary on Steward and Steward (1996) Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monograph Series for the Research in Child Development, 188-203.
43. Mclver, W. and Wakefield, H. (1987). Behavior of abused and nonabused children with anatomically correct dolls. Unpublished manuscript.
44. Naumann, R. (1985). The case of the indecent dolls or can voodoo be professional? Unpublished manuscript.
45. Nelson, K. and Ross, G. (1980). The generalities and specifics of long-term memory in infants and young children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), New directions for child development, 10, Children's memory (pp. 87-101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46. Ornstein, P. A. (1996). To interview a child: Implications of research on children's memory. Commentary on Steward and Steward (1996) Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monograph Series for the Research in Child Development, 215-221.
47. Ornstein, P. A., Follmer, A. and Gordon, B. N. (1995, April). The influence of dolls and props on young children's recall of pediatric examinations. In M. Bruck and S. J. Ceci (Chairs), The use of props in eliciting children's reports of past events: Theoretical and forensic perspectives. Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianopolis, IN.
48. Price, D. W. W. and Goodman, G. S. (1990). Visiting the Wizard: Children's memory for a recurring event. Child Development, 61, 664-680.
49. Raskin, D. (September 6 1990). Sworn deposition in case of State of Florida vs. Bobby Finjnje, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida.
50. Rosenfeld, A. A., Bailey, R. R., Siegel, B. and Bailey, G. (1986). Determining incestuous contact between parent and child: frequency of children touching parent's genitals in a non clinical population. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 481-484.
51. Saywitz, K., Goodman, G., Nicholas, G. and 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.
52. Sivan, A. B., Schor, D. P., Koeppl, G. K. and Noble, L. D. (1988). Interaction of normal children with anatomical dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 295-304.
53. Steward, M. and Steward, D. (1996). Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monograph Series for the Society for Research in Child Development.
54. 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.
55. Tylden, E. (1987). Child sexual abuse. The Lancet, 2, 1017.
56. Wescott, H., Davies, G. and Clifford, B. (1989). The use of anatomical dolls in child witness interviews. Adoption and Fostering, 13, 6-14.
57. White, S., Strom, G. A., Santilli, G. and Halpin, G. (1986). Interviewing young children with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse & Neglect. 10, 519-529.
58. Wolfner, G., Faust, D. and Dawes, R. (1993). The use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations: The state of the science. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 2, 1-11.
59. Yuille, J. (1996). Investigating allegations of child abuse: An interview protocol. Training workshop at the 12th Annual Midwest Conference on Child Sexual Abuse and Incest. Madison, WI.
60. Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R. and Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In G. Goodman and B. Bottoms (Eds.), Understanding and improving children's testimony: Clinical developmental and legal implications (pp. 95-115). New York: Guilford Press.