Abuse Characteristics, Multiple Victimisation and Resilience among Young Adult Males with Histories of Childhood Sexual Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although researchers now concede that one in six men experiences childhood sexual abuse (CSA), this population remains understudied in both the empirical and clinical literature. Little is known about the characteristics of males' CSA experiences (e.g. duration, child‐perpetrator relationship) and about resilient functioning. This study described young adult males' abuse experiences during childhood and their current adaptive functioning. Participants were recruited from across North America through websites geared specifically for males with CSA histories. The sample included 46 males aged 17–25 years who anonymously completed an online questionnaire. Findings indicated that males tended to experience severe CSA, including early age of onset, invasive sexual acts and the use of perpetrator force. Males also reported the co‐occurrence of other forms of childhood maltreatment and adversity, including parental conflict, neglect, physical abuse and emotional maltreatment. Finally, males reported lower rates of resilience on standardised measures, compared with adult community samples in North America. However, scores were consistent with clinical age‐based norms for adolescents with trauma histories. This study contributes to the growing awareness of male CSA, multiple victimisation and its diverse outcomes. Implications of these findings for future research and clinical practice are considered. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ‘Contributes to the growing awareness of male CSA, multiple victimisation and its diverse outcomes’ Key Practitioner Messages The experiences of CSA among males were found to be severe and to occur alongside other forms of victimisation and adversity. Males with CSA histories experienced difficulties in their adaptation, in terms of coping with stress and functioning across work, school and interpersonal spheres. It is important that practitioners consider the serious impact of male CSA across multiple areas of functioning and inquire about other forms of victimisation when working with this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".