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).
The authors respond to 2 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 miscoded 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.
Rind
B
B
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122, USA. rind@vm.temple.edu
Tromovitch
P
P
Bauserman
R
R
D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D002650:Child Abuse, Sexual / Q000523:psychology*; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards*; D012917:Social Adjustment; D012945:Social Values; D009626:Terminology as Topic