Table 9

Data Supporting Rind et al.'s (1998) Conclusions

Content References Tables

Vorige Start

Note: CSA = child sexual abuse


Results of meta-analysis

Results of qualitative review

"The negative potential of CSA for most individuals who have experienced it has been overstated." (p. 42)

Equivocal. Despite an overly inclusive definition. a healthy sample, and multiple sources of attenuation. participants who reported abuse were consistently found to be less well adjusted in 17 of the 18 types of psychological adjustment examined.

Not supported. Despite the preponderance of mild experiences, a significant percentage of both men and woman indicated that the abuse continued to exert a negative effect on their life.

"The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples." (p. 22)

Not supported. Prevalence, severity,. and effect sizes differed across the national surveys and often differed from college data.

Not examined.

Harm associated with CSA is likely due to negative family factors.

Equivocal. Family environment and CSA are too highly correlated to accurately disentangle in retrospective quasi-experimental designs.

Not examined.

Negative effects associated with CSA "are often only temporary." (p. 37)

Not supported. Adults who reported CSA were less well adjusted than their peers despite the fact that in most cases the abuse had occurred many years previously.

Not supported when inappropriate data from non-CSA experiences are disregarded.

"The relation between CSA and adjustment problems was generally stronger for women than men." (p. 42)

Not supported. Moderator analysis did not demonstrate a gender difference. After correcting for base-rate differences. global effect sizes for men and women were nearly identical.

Equivocal. Men were more likely to report neutral or positive reactions; however, they tended to experience less serious abuse. Men's subjective perceptions often did not correlate with objective outcomes.

"Adjustment was associated with level of consent for men, but not for women." (p. 34)

Not supported. After correcting for base-rate differences, effect size estimates for male and female samples in the all-levels-of-consent group were nearly identical.

Not examined.

"Willing" participants displayed "normal adjustment." (p. 46)

Not supported. "Willing" experiences were never directly measured. The 95% confidence interval did not include zero in the all-levels-of-consent groups.

Not examined.

Content References Tables

Vorige Start