Rind et al - Revision history

Prue at 22:30, 4 December 2025

2025-12-04T22:30:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 4 December 2025
Line 63:		Line 63:
	There are responses more in terms of common sense and the ethics of science such as:		There are responses more in terms of common sense and the ethics of science such as:
	*'''Rind, B., Bauserman, R., & Tromovitch, P. (2001). [https://www.ipce.info/library_2/rbt/skept.PDF The Condemned Meta-Analysis and Child Sexual Abuse. Good Science and Long-Overdue Skepticism.] ''Skeptical Inquirer'' - July/August 2001'''		*'''Rind, B., Bauserman, R., & Tromovitch, P. (2001). [https://www.ipce.info/library_2/rbt/skept.PDF The Condemned Meta-Analysis and Child Sexual Abuse. Good Science and Long-Overdue Skepticism.] ''Skeptical Inquirer'' - July/August 2001'''
	::"We hypothesized that, if CSA is like torture, and if it produces the lasting effects claimed by victimologists, then the association between CSA and current adjustment problems should be large regardless of the population sampled (even in the relatively well-functioning college population), and that this association should remain robust even after taking into account other potential causes of poorer functioning e.g., family environment). Moreover, if CSA is as traumatic as being mauled by an attack dog, then nearly 100 percent of victims should report that the ~~experiencewas~~ negative - indeed, devastating. However, none of these predictions were supported."		::"We hypothesized that, if CSA is like torture, and if it produces the lasting effects claimed by victimologists, then the association between CSA and current adjustment problems should be large regardless of the population sampled (even in the relatively well-functioning college population), and that this association should remain robust even after taking into account other potential causes of poorer functioning e.g., family environment). Moreover, if CSA is as traumatic as being mauled by an attack dog, then nearly 100 percent of victims should report that the experience was negative - indeed, devastating. However, none of these predictions were supported."

	::"Victimologists are advocates, not scientists. There is certainly a place for advocacy, as long as it is not confused with science - and as long as public policy is informed by the best scientific information available, rather than by unvalidated beliefs, however passionately held."		::"Victimologists are advocates, not scientists. There is certainly a place for advocacy, as long as it is not confused with science - and as long as public policy is informed by the best scientific information available, rather than by unvalidated beliefs, however passionately held."

Thorn: /* Responses to critique */

2025-12-03T13:16:30Z

Responses to critique

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 3 December 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:
	''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>		''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>

	== ~~Responses~~ to critique ==		== Some responses to critique ==
	Following the methodological criticism by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), Rind et al. responded with an article:		Following the methodological criticism by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), Rind et al. responded with an article:
	*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. ''Psychol Bull.'' 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''		*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. ''Psychol Bull.'' 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::"As we discussed in great detail in our other article in this volume, our use of the consent construct has been recklessly misinterpreted and misrepresented by our critics. We never stated or implied anything in our article about informed consent; our use was limited to simple consent (i.e., willingness), of which both children and adolescents are capable. Moreover, this use was completely scientifically justified because: (a) the same construct appeared in many of the primary studies; (b) it had predictive validity in these studies, successfully discriminating between willing and unwanted CSA in terms of outcome; (c) it has been shown in other studies to have predictive validity (e.g., Coxell et al., 1999); and (d) it had predictive validity in our review as well."		::"As we discussed in great detail in our other article in this volume, our use of the consent construct has been recklessly misinterpreted and misrepresented by our critics. We never stated or implied anything in our article about informed consent; our use was limited to simple consent (i.e., willingness), of which both children and adolescents are capable. Moreover, this use was completely scientifically justified because: (a) the same construct appeared in many of the primary studies; (b) it had predictive validity in these studies, successfully discriminating between willing and unwanted CSA in terms of outcome; (c) it has been shown in other studies to have predictive validity (e.g., Coxell et al., 1999); and (d) it had predictive validity in our review as well."

			There are responses more in terms of common sense and the ethics of science such as:
			*'''Rind, B., Bauserman, R., & Tromovitch, P. (2001). [https://www.ipce.info/library_2/rbt/skept.PDF The Condemned Meta-Analysis and Child Sexual Abuse. Good Science and Long-Overdue Skepticism.] ''Skeptical Inquirer'' - July/August 2001'''
			::"We hypothesized that, if CSA is like torture, and if it produces the lasting effects claimed by victimologists, then the association between CSA and current adjustment problems should be large regardless of the population sampled (even in the relatively well-functioning college population), and that this association should remain robust even after taking into account other potential causes of poorer functioning e.g., family environment). Moreover, if CSA is as traumatic as being mauled by an attack dog, then nearly 100 percent of victims should report that the experiencewas negative - indeed, devastating. However, none of these predictions were supported."

			::"Victimologists are advocates, not scientists. There is certainly a place for advocacy, as long as it is not confused with science - and as long as public policy is informed by the best scientific information available, rather than by unvalidated beliefs, however passionately held."

	The study was also subjected to replication by other scholars:		The study was also subjected to replication by other scholars:

Thorn: /* Responses to critique */

2025-12-03T12:35:20Z

Responses to critique

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 3 December 2025
Line 52:		Line 52:
	== Responses to critique ==		== Responses to critique ==
	Following the methodological criticism by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), Rind et al. responded with an article:		Following the methodological criticism by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), Rind et al. responded with an article:
	*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. Psychol Bull. 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''		*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. ''Psychol Bull.'' 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''
	::"The critique by Dallam et al. (2001) focuses mainly on methodological and statistical issues. We consider all their major criticisms, including issues in (a) external validity, (b) definitions, attenuation, and moderators, (c) internal validity, and (d) qualitative analysis, and argue for the validity and accuracy of our methods and analyses. The critique by Ondersma et al. (2001) is concerned with the "moral standard" (p. 711), dangers that our article allegedly poses, and a perceived backlash against psycho therapy. They claimed that we misused science by suggesting that researchers use morally neutral terminology for some CSA experiences, which they regard as being "extrascientific" and "an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 710). We show that our recommendations regarding terminology were scientific, not extrascientific, as they were based on the attempt to improve construct validity. They warned that our research will be co-opted by groups that intend "to support pre-determined advocacy positions" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 713). We argue that warnings about possible negative consequences of research are scientifically inappropriate, as they represent an instance of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy [...] We add that, contrary to their concern regarding public trust and its effects on therapy, the only legitimate avenue to public trust and sound psychotherapeutic practice is integrity in science (Dineen, 1998; Sarnoff, 2001)."		::"The critique by Dallam et al. (2001) focuses mainly on methodological and statistical issues. We consider all their major criticisms, including issues in (a) external validity, (b) definitions, attenuation, and moderators, (c) internal validity, and (d) qualitative analysis, and argue for the validity and accuracy of our methods and analyses. The critique by Ondersma et al. (2001) is concerned with the "moral standard" (p. 711), dangers that our article allegedly poses, and a perceived backlash against psycho therapy. They claimed that we misused science by suggesting that researchers use morally neutral terminology for some CSA experiences, which they regard as being "extrascientific" and "an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 710). We show that our recommendations regarding terminology were scientific, not extrascientific, as they were based on the attempt to improve construct validity. They warned that our research will be co-opted by groups that intend "to support pre-determined advocacy positions" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 713). We argue that warnings about possible negative consequences of research are scientifically inappropriate, as they represent an instance of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy [...] We add that, contrary to their concern regarding public trust and its effects on therapy, the only legitimate avenue to public trust and sound psychotherapeutic practice is integrity in science (Dineen, 1998; Sarnoff, 2001)."

Thorn: /* Responses to critique */

2025-12-03T12:34:43Z

Responses to critique

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 3 December 2025
Line 56:		Line 56:

	Rind et al address Spiegel's methodological and statistical critique in:		Rind et al address Spiegel's methodological and statistical critique in:
	*'''Rind, B., Bauserman, R., & Tromovitch, P. (2000). [https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rbt_spie.htm Debunking the false allegation of "statistical abuse": A reply to Spiegel.] Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 4(2), 101–111. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1029-1'''		*'''Rind, B., Bauserman, R., & Tromovitch, P. (2000). [https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rbt_spie.htm Debunking the false allegation of "statistical abuse": A reply to Spiegel.] ''Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 4(2), 101–111.'' doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1029-1'''
			::"Spiegel's most serious criticisms were that college samples are invalid because college students have less severe CSA and fewer consequences than others, we biased our meta-analyses with the Landis ( 1956) study, and our statistical analyses were "impermissible." These criticisms suggest that Spiegel read inaccurate summaries of our article written by other critics, rather than reading the article itself. As can be readily found in our article, the assertion about college samples is false, the claim about our misuse of the Landis data is false, and the assertion of impermissible analyses is false."

			::"As we discussed in great detail in our other article in this volume, our use of the consent construct has been recklessly misinterpreted and misrepresented by our critics. We never stated or implied anything in our article about informed consent; our use was limited to simple consent (i.e., willingness), of which both children and adolescents are capable. Moreover, this use was completely scientifically justified because: (a) the same construct appeared in many of the primary studies; (b) it had predictive validity in these studies, successfully discriminating between willing and unwanted CSA in terms of outcome; (c) it has been shown in other studies to have predictive validity (e.g., Coxell et al., 1999); and (d) it had predictive validity in our review as well."

Thorn: /* Response to critique */

2025-12-03T12:25:32Z

Response to critique

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 3 December 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:
	''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>		''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>

	== ~~Response~~ to critique ==		== Responses to critique ==
	Following the methodological criticism by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), Rind et al. responded with an article:		Following the methodological criticism by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), Rind et al. responded with an article:
	*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. Psychol Bull. 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''		*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. Psychol Bull. 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''
	::"The critique by Dallam et al. (2001) focuses mainly on methodological and statistical issues. We consider all their major criticisms, including issues in (a) external validity, (b) definitions, attenuation, and moderators, (c) internal validity, and (d) qualitative analysis, and argue for the validity and accuracy of our methods and analyses. The critique by Ondersma et al. (2001) is concerned with the "moral standard" (p. 711), dangers that our article allegedly poses, and a perceived backlash against psycho therapy. They claimed that we misused science by suggesting that researchers use morally neutral terminology for some CSA experiences, which they regard as being "extrascientific" and "an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 710). We show that our recommendations regarding terminology were scientific, not extrascientific, as they were based on the attempt to improve construct validity. They warned that our research will be co-opted by groups that intend "to support pre-determined advocacy positions" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 713). We argue that warnings about possible negative consequences of research are scientifically inappropriate, as they represent an instance of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy [...] We add that, contrary to their concern regarding public trust and its effects on therapy, the only legitimate avenue to public trust and sound psychotherapeutic practice is integrity in science (Dineen, 1998; Sarnoff, 2001)."		::"The critique by Dallam et al. (2001) focuses mainly on methodological and statistical issues. We consider all their major criticisms, including issues in (a) external validity, (b) definitions, attenuation, and moderators, (c) internal validity, and (d) qualitative analysis, and argue for the validity and accuracy of our methods and analyses. The critique by Ondersma et al. (2001) is concerned with the "moral standard" (p. 711), dangers that our article allegedly poses, and a perceived backlash against psycho therapy. They claimed that we misused science by suggesting that researchers use morally neutral terminology for some CSA experiences, which they regard as being "extrascientific" and "an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 710). We show that our recommendations regarding terminology were scientific, not extrascientific, as they were based on the attempt to improve construct validity. They warned that our research will be co-opted by groups that intend "to support pre-determined advocacy positions" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 713). We argue that warnings about possible negative consequences of research are scientifically inappropriate, as they represent an instance of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy [...] We add that, contrary to their concern regarding public trust and its effects on therapy, the only legitimate avenue to public trust and sound psychotherapeutic practice is integrity in science (Dineen, 1998; Sarnoff, 2001)."

			Rind et al address Spiegel's methodological and statistical critique in:
			*'''Rind, B., Bauserman, R., & Tromovitch, P. (2000). [https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rbt_spie.htm Debunking the false allegation of "statistical abuse": A reply to Spiegel.] Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 4(2), 101–111. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1029-1'''


	The study was also subjected to replication by other scholars:		The study was also subjected to replication by other scholars:

Thorn: /* Response to critique */

2025-08-02T18:59:43Z

Response to critique

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 2 August 2025
Line 51:		Line 51:

	== Response to critique ==		== Response to critique ==
	Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001) Rind et al. responded with article^		Following the methodological criticism by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), Rind et al. responded with an article:
	*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. Psychol Bull. 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''		*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. Psychol Bull. 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''
	::"The critique by Dallam et al. (2001) focuses mainly on methodological and statistical issues. We consider all their major criticisms, including issues in (a) external validity, (b) definitions, attenuation, and moderators, (c) internal validity, and (d) qualitative analysis, and argue for the validity and accuracy of our methods and analyses. The critique by Ondersma et al. (2001) is concerned with the "moral standard" (p. 711), dangers that our article allegedly poses, and a perceived backlash against psycho therapy. They claimed that we misused science by suggesting that researchers use morally neutral terminology for some CSA experiences, which they regard as being "extrascientific" and "an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 710). We show that our recommendations regarding terminology were scientific, not extrascientific, as they were based on the attempt to improve construct validity. They warned that our research will be co-opted by groups that intend "to support pre-determined advocacy positions" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 713). We argue that warnings about possible negative consequences of research are scientifically inappropriate, as they represent an instance of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy [...] We add that, contrary to their concern regarding public trust and its effects on therapy, the only legitimate avenue to public trust and sound psychotherapeutic practice is integrity in science (Dineen, 1998; Sarnoff, 2001)."		::"The critique by Dallam et al. (2001) focuses mainly on methodological and statistical issues. We consider all their major criticisms, including issues in (a) external validity, (b) definitions, attenuation, and moderators, (c) internal validity, and (d) qualitative analysis, and argue for the validity and accuracy of our methods and analyses. The critique by Ondersma et al. (2001) is concerned with the "moral standard" (p. 711), dangers that our article allegedly poses, and a perceived backlash against psycho therapy. They claimed that we misused science by suggesting that researchers use morally neutral terminology for some CSA experiences, which they regard as being "extrascientific" and "an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 710). We show that our recommendations regarding terminology were scientific, not extrascientific, as they were based on the attempt to improve construct validity. They warned that our research will be co-opted by groups that intend "to support pre-determined advocacy positions" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 713). We argue that warnings about possible negative consequences of research are scientifically inappropriate, as they represent an instance of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy [...] We add that, contrary to their concern regarding public trust and its effects on therapy, the only legitimate avenue to public trust and sound psychotherapeutic practice is integrity in science (Dineen, 1998; Sarnoff, 2001)."

Thorn: /* Replication */

2025-08-02T18:50:17Z

Replication

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 2 August 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:
	''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>		''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>

	== ~~Replication~~ ==		== Response to critique ==
			Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001) Rind et al. responded with article^
			*'''Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. (2001) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11629916_The_Validity_and_Appropriateness_of_Methods_Analyses_and_Conclusions_in_Rind_et_al_1998_A_Rebuttal_of_Victimological_Critique_from_Ondersma_et_al_2001_and_Dollam_et_al_2001 The validity and appropriateness 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)]. Psychol Bull. 2001 Nov;127(6):734-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID: 11726069.'''
			::"The critique by Dallam et al. (2001) focuses mainly on methodological and statistical issues. We consider all their major criticisms, including issues in (a) external validity, (b) definitions, attenuation, and moderators, (c) internal validity, and (d) qualitative analysis, and argue for the validity and accuracy of our methods and analyses. The critique by Ondersma et al. (2001) is concerned with the "moral standard" (p. 711), dangers that our article allegedly poses, and a perceived backlash against psycho therapy. They claimed that we misused science by suggesting that researchers use morally neutral terminology for some CSA experiences, which they regard as being "extrascientific" and "an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 710). We show that our recommendations regarding terminology were scientific, not extrascientific, as they were based on the attempt to improve construct validity. They warned that our research will be co-opted by groups that intend "to support pre-determined advocacy positions" (Ondersma et al., 2001, p. 713). We argue that warnings about possible negative consequences of research are scientifically inappropriate, as they represent an instance of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy [...] We add that, contrary to their concern regarding public trust and its effects on therapy, the only legitimate avenue to public trust and sound psychotherapeutic practice is integrity in science (Dineen, 1998; Sarnoff, 2001)."

	~~Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), the~~ study was subjected to replication by other scholars:		The study was also subjected to replication by other scholars:
	*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])		*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])
	*:"The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance."		*:"The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance."

Xtjvimds16dovrfc at 00:38, 6 June 2025

2025-06-06T00:38:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 6 June 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:
	''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>		''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>

	~~<br>~~
	== Replication ==		== Replication ==

	Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), the study was subjected to replication by other scholars:		Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), the study was subjected to replication by other scholars:
	*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])		*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])
	::"The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance."		*:"The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance."
	::"Even with the numerous differences in coding of studies, the overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical"		*:"Even with the numerous differences in coding of studies, the overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical"

	==Gallery==		==Gallery==

Thorn: /* Replication */

2025-06-05T18:13:05Z

Replication

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 5 June 2025
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), the study was subjected to replication by other scholars:		Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), the study was subjected to replication by other scholars:
	*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])		*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])
	::"Even with the numerous differences in coding of studies, the overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical~~, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population.~~"		::"The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance."
			::"Even with the numerous differences in coding of studies, the overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical"

	==Gallery==		==Gallery==

Thorn: /* Replication */

2025-06-05T18:10:54Z

Replication

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:10, 5 June 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:
	''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>		''Shouldn't this be good news? Shouldn't we be glad to know which experiences are in fact traumatic for children, and which are not upsetting to them?''</blockquote>

			<br>
	== Replication ==		== Replication ==
	Following methodological criticism, the study was subjected to replication by other scholars		Following methodological criticism of Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001), the study was subjected to replication by other scholars:
	*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])		*'''Ulrich, H., Randolph, M., & Acheson, S. (2005). [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00021-007 Child sexual abuse: A replication of the meta-analytic examination of child sexual abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work'', 4(2), 37–51.''' ([https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replication-of-the-meta-analytic-examination-of-child-sexual-abuse-by-Rind-Tromovitch-and-Bauserman.pdf pdf])
	::"Even with the numerous differences in coding of studies, the overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population."		::"Even with the numerous differences in coding of studies, the overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population."