Neither should anatomically correct dolls.

FACT: They are the same dolls.  There was so much static (i.e., controversy) about the dolls being grotesque, mental health professionals changed how they referred to the dolls in their literature.  But grotesque and incorrect  by any name is still grotesque and incorrect.

The dolls were first used in child therapy, and there's no objection to them being used for that purpose or for eliciting the child's terminology for anatomical parts.

There is, however, a great dispute going on about using the so-called anatomically detailed dolls for evaluating or diagnosing whether a child has been abused or raped.  The reason, according to some members of the American Psychological Association, is quite clear:
 

. . . neither the dolls, nor their use, are standardized or accompanied by normative data. There are currently no uniform standards for conducting interviews with the dolls . . . .   We urge continued research in quest of more and better data regarding the stimulus properties of such dolls and normative behavior of abused and nonabused children.

Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck, Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children's Testimony (American Psychological Association, Wash., D.C., 1995), p. 164.   It is a book which must be on either your shelf or your attorney's.

To buy it now it, click  now.

The APA's position is that the dolls should not be used to evaluate whether abuse really occurred or whether the child just perceives that the abuse occurred.  In either case, the use of the dolls would not be valid.

In fact, there has only been sufficient evidence to show the potential misuse of the dolls and that there is reason for concern.  Without sufficient evidence to the contrary, Ceci  and Bruck urge that the dolls not be used for diagnostic purposes, at least not with very young children.  Id.

States differ as to whether evidence obtained through the use of the dolls is admissible or barred.