... of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998):

A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001)

[To the index of the Rind et al. files]

Bruce Rind
Temple University

Philip Tromovitch
 Tokyo Medical and Dental University

Robert Bauserman
State of Maryland

Psychological Bulletin Vol 127. No.6.

Abstract

The authors respond to 2 victimological critiques of their 1998 meta-analysis on child sexual abuse (CSA). S. J. Dallam et al. (2001) claimed that B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) committed numerous methodological and statistical errors, and often miscoded and misinterpreted data.

The authors show all these claims to be invalid. To the contrary, they demonstrate frequent bias in Dallam et al.'s criticisms. S. J. Ondersma et al. (2001) claimed that Rind et al.'s study is part of a backlash against psychotherapists, that its suggestions regarding CSA definitions were extra-scientific, and that the moral standard is needed to understand CSA scientifically. The authors show their suggestions to have been scientific and argue that it is Ondersma et al.'s issue-framing and moral standard that are extra-scientific. This reply supports the original methods, analyses, recommendations, and conclusions of Rind et al.

Bruce Rind, Department of Psychology, Temple University;
Philip Tromovitch, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan;
Robert Bauserman, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, State of Maryland.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruce Rind. Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122.
Electronic mail may be sent to rind@vm.temple.edu.

[To the index of the Rind et al. files]