Rind Vindicated
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The condemnation of Rind's meta-analysis by the U.S. Congress was premature and inappropriate. http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Documentation/Documents/doc_99083_congress.htm | The condemnation of Rind's meta-analysis by the U.S. Congress was premature and inappropriate. http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Documentation/Documents/doc_99083_congress.htm | ||
| − | The Rind Meta-Analysis http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/rind-bauserman-tromovitch-1998.pdf used math and science appropriately. | + | The Rind Meta-Analysis http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/rind-bauserman-tromovitch-1998.pdf used math and science appropriately. Its mathematical results were re-confirmed when the meta-analysis was replicated in 2005 in |
'''Ulrich, Heather, Randolph, Mickey and Acheson, Shawn''' | '''Ulrich, Heather, Randolph, Mickey and Acheson, Shawn''' | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)''' | '''A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)''' | ||
| − | '''''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice'', vol. 4, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2005-06).''' | + | '''''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice'', vol. 4, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2005-06). The full text of this article, with its tables, is found at:'''<br> |
| + | |||
| + | http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rbt_replica/frame.htm | ||
"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." http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html | "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." http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html | ||
Latest revision as of 16:32, 11 August 2011
The condemnation of Rind's meta-analysis by the U.S. Congress was premature and inappropriate. http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Documentation/Documents/doc_99083_congress.htm
The Rind Meta-Analysis http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/rind-bauserman-tromovitch-1998.pdf used math and science appropriately. Its mathematical results were re-confirmed when the meta-analysis was replicated in 2005 in
Ulrich, Heather, Randolph, Mickey and Acheson, Shawn
A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, vol. 4, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2005-06). The full text of this article, with its tables, is found at:
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rbt_replica/frame.htm
"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." http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html
"Child sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to long-term harm." quoted from the above replicating study in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
For a detailed account of the Rind controversy, see http://www.mhamic.org/rind/
