AugustRFormanB, 1986, ‘Differences between sexually and non-sexually abused children in their behavioural responses to anatomically correct dolls’, in C Walker (Chair) Use of anatomically correct dolls in evaluation of child sexual abuse. Symposium presented at the Fourth National Conference on Sexual Victimization of Children, New Orleans, LA.
2.
BoatB WEversonM D, 1988a, ‘Interviewing young children with anatomical dolls’, Child Welfare, 67 (4), 337–352.
3.
BoatB WEversonM D, 1988b, ‘Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 12 (2), 171–179.
4.
EaddyV BGentryC E, 1981, ‘Play with a purpose: Interviewing abused or neglected children’, Public Welfare, 39, 43–47.
5.
Family Law Reports, 1987, 4.
6.
FriedemannVMorganM, 1985, Interviewing sexual abuse victims using anatomical dolls: the professional's guidebook. Eugene, Oregon: Shamrock Press.
7.
GabrielR M, 1985, ‘Anatomically correct dolls in the diagnosis of sexual abuse of children’, Journal of The Melanie Klein Society, 3, 40–50.
8.
GlaserDCollinsC, in press, ‘The response of young, non-sexually abused children to anatomically correct dolls'.
9.
GoodmanG SAmanC, 1987, ‘Children's use of anatomically correct dolls to report an event’, in M Steward (Chair) Evaluation of suspected child abuse: developmental, clinical and legal perspectives on the use of anatomically correct dolls. Symposium presented at the Society for Research in Child Development convention, Baltimore, MD.
10.
GoransonS E, 1986, ‘Young child interview responses to anatomically detailed dolls: implications for practice and research in child sexual abuse’, Unpublished Masters thesis, University of British Columbia.
11.
HarnestJChavernH E, 1986, ‘A survey of the use of anatomically correct dolls in sex education’, Family Professional, 1 (13).
12.
In re AmberBTeelaBRonB., 1987, 236California Reporter, 623.
13.
JampoleLWeberM K, 1987, ‘An assessment of the behaviour of sexually abused and non-sexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 187–192.
14.
JensenJ BRealmutoGWescoeS, 1986, ‘Are there differences in the play with anatomically correct dolls: abused vs non-abused children’, Paper presented to the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Washington, DC.
15.
JonesD P H, 1987, ‘The evidence of a three-year-old child’, Criminal Law Review, October, 677–680.
16.
MacFarlaneKKrebsS, 1986, ‘Techniques of interviewing and evidence gathering’, in MacFarlaneKWatermanJ (eds.) Sexual abuse of young children: evaluation and treatment. New York: Guilford.
17.
McIverWWakefieldH, 1987, ‘Behaviour of abused and non-abused children with anatomically correct dolls’, Manuscript submitted for publication.
18.
RaskinD CYuilleJ C, in press, ‘Problems in evaluating interviews of children in sexual abuse cases’, to appear in CeciS JTogliaM PRossD F (eds.), New perspectives on the child witness, New York: Springer-Verlag.
19.
ShamroyJ A, 1987, ‘Interviewing the sexually abused child with anatomically correct dolls’, Social Work, Mar-Apr, 165–166.
20.
SivanA BSchorD PKoepplG KNobleL D, 1988, ‘Interaction of normal children with anatomical dolls’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 295–304.
21.
TempletonSWeberC, 1985, ‘An assessment of the behaviour of sexually abused and non-sexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls’, Unpublished Research Report, Louisiana State University.
22.
TyldenE, 1987, ‘Child sexual abuse’, The Lancet, 2, 1017.
23.
VizardE, 1987, ‘Interviewing young sexually abused children — assessment techniques’, Family Law, 28–31.
24.
VizardETranterM, 1988, ‘Helping young children to describe experiences of child sexual abuse’, in A Bentovim, A Elton, J Hildebrand, M Tranter and E Vizard, Child sexual abuse within the family, London: Butterworth.
WellmanH MSommervilleS C, 1980, ‘Quasinaturalistic tasks in the study of cognition; the memory related skills of toddlers’, New Directions for Child Development, 10, 33–48
27.
WhiteS, 1986, ‘Uses and abuses of the sexually anatomically correct dolls’, Division of Child, Young and Family Services Newsletter (APA Divison 37), 9(1), 3–6.
28.
WhiteSSantilliG, 1988, ‘A review of clinical practices and research data on anatomical dolls’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 430–442.
29.
WhiteSStromGSantilliGHalpinB, 1986, ‘Interviewing young children with anatomically correct dolls’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 519–529.
30.
WhiteSStromGSantilliGQuinnK M, 1987, ‘Guidelines for interviewing pre-schoolers with sexually anatomically detailed dolls’, Unpublished manuscript.
31.
WilkinsonJ, 1988, ‘Context effects in children's event memory’, in GrunebergM MMorrisP ESykesR N (eds.) Practical aspects of memory: current research and issues, Chichester: Wiley
32.
YatesATerrL, 1988a, ‘Anatomically correct dolls — should they be used as the basis for expert testimony?’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (2), 254–257.
33.
YatesATerrL, 1988b, ‘Issue continued: Anatomically correct dolls — should they be used as the basis for expert testimony?’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (3) 387–388.
34.
YuilleJ C, 1988, ‘The systematic assessment of children's testimony’, Canadian Pyschology, 29 (3), 247–262.
35.
YuilleJ CKingM AMacDougallD, 1987, Child victims and witnesses: the Social Science and Legal Literature, Ottawa: Ministry of Justice.