Err, it was a meta-study. It analysed 59 previous studies [Refer "Abstract" below] using accepted and applicable methodologies in order to reach its conclusions.
Thus, with the exception of sample population size (which is small, but still statistically valid) this report is statistically comprable to 59! independent reports.... After careful examination of their application of the selected methodologies, I find their conclusions highly persuasive.
"Content", p22. (http://www.tegenwicht.org/13_rbt_eng/rbt/metaana.htm)
ABSTRACT
Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.
Section 9 "Child Sexual Abuse as a Construct Reconsidered" p45 et ff (http://www.tegenwicht.org/13_rbt_eng/rbt/metaana.htm)
"Behaviors such as masturbation, homosexuality, fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual promiscuity were codified as pathological in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (1952) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The number and variety of sexual behaviors labeled pathological has decreased, but mental health professionals continue to designate sexual behaviors as disorders when they violate current sexual scripts for what is considered acceptable ( Levine & Troiden, 1988 ). This history of conflating morality and law with science in the area of human sexuality by psychologists and others indicates a strong need for caution in scientific inquiries of sexual behaviors that remain taboo, with child sexual abuse being a prime example (Rind, 1995 )."
...
"Beliefs about CSA in American culture center on the viewpoint that CSA by nature is such a powerfully negative force that (a) it is likely to cause harm, (b) most children or adolescents who experience it will be affected, (c) this harm will typically be severe or intense, and (d) CSA will have an equivalently negative impact on both boys and girls. Despite this widespread belief, the empirical evidence from college and national samples suggests a more cautious opinion. Results of the present review do not support these assumed properties; CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population. The finding that college samples closely parallel national samples with regard to prevalence of CSA, types of experiences, self-perceived effects, and CSA-symptom relations strengthens the conclusion that CSA is not a propertied phenomenon and supports Constantine's (1981) conclusion that CSA has no inbuilt or inevitable outcome or set of emotional reactions."
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25809>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT