Rind Vindicated

From William A. Percy
Revision as of 16:32, 11 August 2011 by Elvan (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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:


"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/

Personal tools