[Download as a  PDF file]

A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples

Bruce Rind
Department of Psychology

Philip Tromovitch
Graduate School of Education


Robert Bauserman
Department of Psychology University of Michigan

Note*

[NOTE: For references to this article, the original page numbers are added.
This is page 22]

CONTENT

Link

Titles

Original page

Go to >

Abstract

22

Go to >

[Introduction]

22

Go to >

Previous Literature Reviews

23
Go to >

          Qualitative Literature Reviews

 23
Go to >                    Causality 23
Go to >                    Intensity 23
Go to >                    Gender Equivalance  24
Go to >

          Limitations of Qualitative Literature Reviews

 24
Go to >                   Sampling biases 24
Go to >                   Subjectivity and imprecision 24
Go to >

          Quantitative Literature Reviews

 24
Go to >

          Synthesis of Quantitative Reviews

 25
Go to >                     Causality 25
Go to >                     Pervasiveness 25
Go to >                    Intensity 26
Go to >                    Gender Equivalence 26

Go to >

Current Review

26

Go to >

Method

27
Go to >

          Sample of Studies

 27
Go to >

          Coding the Studies

 27
Go to >

          Psychological Correlates of CSA

 28
Go to >

          Statistical Analysis

 29

Go to >

Results

29
Go to >

          Definitions of CSA, Prevalence Rates, and Types of CSA

 29
Go to >                     Definitions 29
Go to >                     Prevalence rates 29
Go to >                     Types of CSA 29
Go to >

          Magnitude of the Relationship Between CSA and   Psychological Adjustment

 31

Go to >

                    Sample-level analysis

31

Go to >

                    Symptom-level analysis

31

Go to >

          Moderator Analysis

32

Go to >

                   Semi-partial correlational Analyses

32

Go to >

                   Contrast analyses

33

Go to >

                   Simple correlations

34

Go to >

                   Moderators concerning aspects of the CSA experience

34

Go to >

           Self-reported Reactions to and Effects From CSA

35

Go to >

                    Retrospectively recalled immediate  reactions

35

Go to >

                    Current reflexions

36

Go to >

                    Self-reported effects

36

Go to >

                    Comparing male versus female reactions  and self-reported effects via meta-analysis

37

Go to >

          Family Environment

38

Go to >

                    Family environment-CSA relations

38

Go to >

                    Family environment-symptom relations

39

Go to >

                    Statistical control

39

Go to >

                    Statistical validity

41

Go to >

Discussion

42

Go to >

The Four Assumed Properties of CSA Revisited

42

Go to >

           Gender Equivalance

42

Go to >

           Causality

43

Go to >

           Pervasiveness and Intensity of Negative Effects or Correlates

44

Go to >

Moderators

44

Go to >

Child SexualAbuse as a Construct Reconsidered

45

Go to >

Summary and Conclusion

46

Go to >

References

47

Go to >

Appendix

51

 

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.

Note 

[The notes are originally placed at the same page they appear]

* Bruce Rind, Department of Psychology, temple University;
Philip Tromovitch, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania;
Robert Bauserman, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
We thank Ralph Rosnow for his meta-analytic advice and comments on an earlier draft and Steve Wexler for his helpful comments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruce Rind, Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pensylvania 19122 [USA].
Electronic mail may be sent to rind@vm.temple.edu