.
Although the use of anatomical diagrams and different tools may be of assistance during the interview process, there are still implications in terms of concrete interviewing and the nature of interviewing itself. Interviewers should have some basic knowledge on the child's case. For example, they should have information regarding the child's developmental capability, symptoms or effects caused by the abuse, and whether or not the child has previously disclosed the abuse to anyone. The interviewer should build rapport and like Russell states, the interviewer should establish a common ground with the child when it comes to terminology of body parts (Russell 2). Establishing rapport can also be beneficial because the child can become accustomed to the interviewer asking those types of questions and find the interview less intimidating than it would be if it was an interview conducted by a police officer, for example. An interview can also be affected if the interviewer does not make sure the child sees him/her as eye to eye because they will feel like they are in a sense in control of the interview. Another implication for interviewing that comes from using anatomical diagrams is that they might not always make an impact in court. Although the article states that most states use these tools as part of their investigation protocol, many state courts still do not accept them as part of a written affidavit. For example, in the U.S vs. Archdale case, it was determined that dolls would be acceptable tools for interviewers to use in their interviews. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals of Georgia found anatomical diagrams only serve to illustrate the witnesses' testimony (Russell 4). .
Using anatomical diagrams for forensic interviewing is useful, but since it is not proven that the use of diagrams is the most effective method to have a child disclose abuse, it is up to the interviewer to use them.