Science or Propaganda? An Examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998)

• NCJ Number: 194444
• Journal: Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Volume: 9 Issue: 3/4 Dated: 2001 Pages: 109-134
• Author(s): Stephanie J. Dallam
• Editor(s): .
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 26 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Literature Review
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: See articles NCJ-194445-446 for discussions of the Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman findings.

Annotation

In this article the author reviews the controversial July 1998 article "A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman.

Abstract

This article is an analysis of Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman's (Rind et al.) 1998 work "A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" and an exploration of the effect of the article on the social sciences discourse concerning child sexual abuse. The underlying work by Rind, et al. was a review of 59 studies of college students for the incidence and results of child sexual abuse. For the purposes of this article, the key findings of Rind et al. were: 1) students who reported a history of child sexual abuse were less well adjusted in 17 or 18 psychological adjustment factors, however, the mental health impact reported by the subject may not be causally related to the child sexual abuse, but may instead be related to family dysfunction also experienced by the research subjects; 2) women had generally more negative reactions to child sexual abuse than did men; 3) for male subjects who identified their childhood sexual contact as consensual, there was generally no correlation to maladjustment; and 4) consensual or willing sexual activity between a child and an adult should be labeled "adult-child sex" and not child sexual abuse. The author explored Rind, et al.’s findings in a scientific context assuming that there were only two ways to test the validity of a study’s results, either through testing the results in a study using higher or equal quality methodology or by critical examination of the original findings and methodology. The author presents several examples of child sexual abuse research using equal or better quality methodology. In general, the results of those studies are not consistent with the findings reported by Rind, et al. The author then gives several examples of past critical reviews of Rind, et al.’s study including discussion of sample bias, measurement problems, and statistical analysis methodology. Finally the author discusses the advocacy purpose and advocacy use of the Rind, et al.’s study. 3 tables, 15 notes, 74 references