The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).

B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) examined the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) by meta-analyzing studies of college students. The authors reported that effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense" and that "men reacted much less negatively than women" (p. 22) and recommended value-neutral reconceptualization of the CSA construct. The current analysis revealed numerous problems in that study that minimized CSA-adjustment relations, including use of a healthy sample, an inclusive definition of CSA, failure to correct for statistical attenuation, and misreporting of original data. Rind et al.'s study's main conclusions were not supported by the original data. As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings.

The identification and management of self-mutilating patients in primary care.

Self-mutilation has been described as a complex group of behaviors resulting in the deliberate destruction of body tissue without conscious suicidal intent. Clinical reports suggest that many adults who engage in self-destructive behavior have childhood histories of trauma and disrupted parental care. Painless cutting after a period of depersonalization, followed by relaxation and repersonalization after bleeding, is the typical pattern reported. Complications include social rejection and condemnation as a response both to the behavior or the resulting disfigurement. The most serious complication of self-mutilation is death as a direct result of damage inflicted on the body or from a drug overdose. Primary care providers are in an excellent position to identify and intervene in self-injurious behavior. Establishing a trusting relationship appears to be the most critical component of assessing and treating the client who self-mutilates. Psychotherapy and psychotropic medications, though not specific to self-mutilation, remain the most compelling treatment options.

Crisis or creation?a systematic examination of "false memory syndrome".

In 1992, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), an advocacy organization for people claiming to be falsely accused of sexual abuse, announced the discovery of a new syndrome involving iatrogenically created false memories of childhood sexual abuse. This article critically examines the assumptions underlying “False Memory Syndrome” to determine whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support it as a valid diagnostic construct. Epidemiological evidence is also examined to determine whether there is data to support its advocates' claim of a public health crisis or epidemic. A review of the relevant literature demonstrates that the existence of such a syndrome lacks general acceptance in the mental health field, and that the construct is based on a series of faulty assumptions, many of which have been scientifically disproven. There is a similar lack of empirical validation for claims of a “false memory” epidemic. It is concluded that in the absence of any substantive scientific support, “False Memory Syndrome” is best characterized as a pseudoscientific syndrome that was developed to defend against claims of child abuse.

Science or propaganda?an examination of rind, tromovitch and bauserman (1998).

An article, “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” published in the July 1998 edition of the Psychological Bulletin resulted in an unprecedented amount of media attention and became the first scientific article to be formally denounced by the United States House of Representatives. The study's authors analyzed the findings of 59 earlier studies on child sexual abuse (CSA) and concluded that mental health researchers have greatly overstated CSA's harmful potential. They recommended that a willing encounter with positive reactions would no longer be considered to be sexual abuse; instead, it would simply be labeled adult-child sex. The study's conclusions and recommendations spawned a debate in both the popular and scholarly press. A number of commentators suggested that the study is pedophile propaganda masquerading as science. Others claimed that the authors are victims of a moralistic witch-hunt and that scientific freedom is being threatened. After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings.