MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017439967 · doi:10.1080/00223980109603677

A Meta-Analysis of the Published Research on the Effects of Child Sexual Abuse

2001· review· en· W2017439967 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Oddone Paolucci, Mark Genuis, Claudio Violato

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Psychology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromiscuityPsychologyClinical psychologyMeta-analysisDepression (economics)Sexual abuseSocioeconomic statusChild sexual abuseSubstance abusePsychiatryPoison controlInjury preventionMedicinePopulationInternal medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse (CSA) was undertaken for 6 outcomes: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, suicide, sexual promiscuity, victim-perpetrator cycle, and poor academic performance. Thirty-seven studies published between 1981 and 1995 involving 25,367 people were included. Many of the studies were published in 1994 (24; 65%), and most were done in the United States (22; 59%). All six dependent variables were coded, and effect sizes (d) were computed for each outcome. Average unweighted and weighted ds for each of the respective outcome variables were .50 and .40 for PTSD, .63 and .44 for depression, .64 and .44 for suicide, .59 and .29 for sexual promiscuity, .41 and .16 for victim-perpetrator cycle, and .24 and .19 for academic performance. A file drawer analysis indicated that 277 studies with null ds would be required to negate the present findings. The analyses provide clear evidence confirming the link between CSA and subsequent negative short- and long-term effects on development. There were no statistically significant differences on ds when various potentially mediating variables such as gender, socioeconomic status, type of abuse, age when abused, relationship to perpetrator, and number of abuse incidents were assessed. The results of the present meta-analysis support the multifaceted model of traumatization rather than a specific sexual abuse syndrome of CSA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.050
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.331
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1,154
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PsychologySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207