The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): a rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersman et al. (2001) and Dallman et al. (2001)
The authors respond to two 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 miscounted and misinterpreted data...
| Publicado en: | Psychological Bulletin Vol. 127; no. 6; pp. 734 - 759 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
American Psychological Association
November 2001
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507719748&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 507719748 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00332909 PSB jtl: Psychological Bulletin issn: 00332909 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: November 2001 vid: 127 iid: 6 pid: 34 pub: American Psychological Association artinfo: ui: 507719748 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734 ppf: 734 ppct: 25 formats: tig: atl: The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): a rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersman et al. (2001) and Dallman et al. (2001) aug: au: Rind, Bruce Tromovitch, Philip Bauserman, Robert su: Mental health of adult child sexual abuse victims sug: subj: Mental health of adult child sexual abuse victims ab: The authors respond to two 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 miscounted 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 extrascientific, 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 extrascientific. This reply supports the original methods, analyses, recommendations, and conclusions of Rind et al. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|