Posted on 11/29/2001 4:40:07 PM PST by Moonman62
STANFORD, Calif. - Citing questionable research methods and misleading reporting of data, Stanford researchers and other national experts have debunked a controversial 1998 study that said sexual abuse may not cause long-term harm to children. According to Stanford researchers and colleagues from the Leadership Council on Mental Health, the authors of the 1998 study misled the public by presenting data that disguised the full ramifications of child sexual abuse. A scientific critique of the study is published in the November issue of Psychological Bulletin.
"It's basically sloppy science," said David Spiegel, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and senior author of the critique. "They made a lot of mistakes."
The mistakes, Spiegel said, appear to have skewed the results to support the authors' own hypothesis. Of even greater concern, Spiegel said, is the fact that because the paper has become a tool to overturn sexual abuse cases in the courts, the paper's conclusions have had the potential of causing damage beyond the realm of the science.
The study by Bruce Rind, PhD, Phillip Tromovitch, PhD, and Robert Bauserman, PhD (from Temple University, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the University of Pennsylvania, respectively) first appeared in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin. The authors concluded that especially in the case of boys, the effects of child sexual abuse had been overstated and in some instances, the incident had been either a neutral or even positive experience.
When Spiegel and others re-examined the data, they found the initial analysis plagued by a number of problems, including biased samples, the inclusion of very mild sexual encounters in public settings as examples of child sexual abuse, misreporting of original data, and a failure to correct for the many sources of statistical anomalies. Together, Spiegel said, these problems served to minimize the association between child sexual abuse and subsequent psychological difficulties. And yet despite all the errors, Spiegel noted, the 1998 meta-analysis still reveals a link between a history of sexual abuse and an increased vulnerability to a wide range of mental health and social problems in adult life. This clear link, according to Spiegel, was downplayed by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman in their conclusions.
Spiegel said he was most disturbed, however, by the study's conclusion that some children may have consented to sexual interactions, and therefore did not suffer psychological trauma from the experience. The authors advocated for a change in the terminology used to describe various forms of sexual interactions. They suggested, for instance, that what was described as "willing" encounters between a child and an adult should be termed "adult-child sex," rather than sexual abuse.
"Not only is such a conclusion from the data scientifically unjustifiable, but it is morally quite disturbing," Spiegel said. "Children cannot sign contracts or consent to medical procedures, so how could they 'consent' to sexual involvement with an adult?"
"I think sometimes people are too willing to accept research that shows that long-held clinical beliefs are wrong," Spiegel said. "Clearly it's important to examine these beliefs, but in this case, the research was so poor, it does not merit over-turning solid clinical and research evidence that child sexual abuse often does lasting harm."
I'd like to bump these persons. Bump them as known research abusers.
I'd like to bump these persons, too. With a zamboni.
But I think the RESEARCHERS were at least pro-NAMBLA, if not card-carrying child molesters.
First, it is useful to know that David Spiegel is one of the "insiders" of the abuse-trauma community, and as such has a very definite victim-bias of his own. He is the kind of guy that gives "authoritative" cover to those county social workers you all love so much, who see sex abuse behind every door, and the sickies of the counseling trade who caused a decade of mayhem based on false memories ginned up in women's "support groups".
It is also useful to know that the "original data" he now criticizes as sloppy is the same data he and his friends cited for years as supporting his own opinions.
Funny how that data changed when someone else read it closely...
The call for sanity in this area is contentious and politically incorrect...it cries out for critical judgment and skepticism of extreme claims...and vigilance for the politicization of science. Usually FR is great at just these attributes. On this subject, though, I'm not holding my breath.
At least you correctly characterized it as a "feeling" rather than a reasoned response.
By your criterion, all we have to do is decide tomorrow individually and as a society that adult men having sex with six year-old children isn't psychologically damaging to the children and--presto--it isn't.
I think that anyone who adopts such a view shows a ready willigness to legitimize pedophilia.
Look, I'm mindful of the dilemma. The same thing applies to rape -- there is a stigma attached to it -- something that societies place on the victims. You can see the difference in different societies. Some societies treat raped women like damaged goods -- thus exaserbating the damage of the rape itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.