Language disorder and retrospectively reported sexual abuse of girls: severity and disclosure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite emerging evidence for an association between communication disorders and maltreatment, little research has examined sexual abuse characteristics or disclosure experiences among individuals with language disorder (LD). Given that communication difficulties may constitute a barrier to disclosure, the disclosure experiences among individuals with and without communication difficulties may also differ. METHODS: Five-year-old children identified with a language and/or speech disorder from a nonclinical community sample and a control group were followed to adulthood in a prospective longitudinal study. At age 31, participants completed a behaviorally specific questionnaire on experiences of sexual abuse and questionnaires on disclosure experiences and social reactions to disclosure. Due to low endorsement of sexual victimization among male participants and low sample size, results are reported for women only and exclude nine participants with speech disorder without LD. Participation rates were 28 of 40 in the LD cohort and 45 of 51 controls. Sexual victimization severity was defined using an index combining five indicators (duration, invasiveness, relationship to perpetrator, coercive tactics used, and number of perpetrators). Subthreshold sexual victimization was defined as a single, noncontact incident with a perpetrator unknown to the child; experiences with greater severity were classified as child sexual abuse. RESULTS: Among women who reported sexual victimization by age 18, invasiveness and overall severity were greater in the LD cohort than in the control cohort. Women in the LD cohort (43%) were more likely than controls (16%) to report child sexual abuse, excluding subthreshold experiences. There were no differences between cohorts in probability of disclosure, latency to disclosure, or social reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Women with a history of child LD in a nonclinical sample reported substantial child sexual abuse experiences. Implications for understanding associations between LD and mental health and for prevention and early intervention are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".