Some methodological problems in estimating incidence and prevalence in child sexual abuse research

By Juliette D. G. Goldman, Usha K. Padayachi. 2000

179 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Relationship of personal, familial, and abuse-specific factors with outcome following childhood sexual abuse (2010, background): “There are difficulties at every turn, including what age range denotes childhood, which acts are considered sexual in nature, and how one determines the intent of the “perpetrator” (Goldman & Padayachi, 2000; Haugaard, 2000).”
A Global Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse: Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Around the World (2011, background): “A possible reason for the lower prevalence in college samples is that they may be a psychologically healthier group (Goldman & Padayachi, 2000).”
The Prevalence of Child Maltreatment across the Globe: Review of a Series of Meta‐Analyses (2015, background): “…or questionnaires, with some reviews noting that studies using interviews show higher prevalence rates than those using questionnaires (Pereda et al., 2009a; Wyatt & Peters, 1986) and others not reporting such a difference (Goldman & Padayachi, 2000; Pereda et al., 2009b; Wyatt & Peters, 1986).”
The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2013, background): “Finally, previous authors have suggested a positive impact of number and type of screening questions asked on the prevalence estimates of CSA (Goldman and Padayachi 2000; Leventhal 1998; Bolen and Scannapieco 1999; Finkelhor 1994).”