al. 1998 study. Both Ondersma et. al. (2001) and Dallam et. al. (2001) pointed out statistical errors and lack of a proper definition for childhood sexual abuse. These authors were in support of the socially acceptable view that child sexual abuse is abuse and causes harm to the child and their coping skills. I agree that a college population may not have been the best to research. As mentioned by Dallam et. al. (2001), college students tend to be young and well-functioning. This does not equate the entire population of those who have experienced childhood sexual abused. What about older people or people from a lower socioeconomic status who could not afford college? There is much of the general population not taken into concern with the type of population chosen for Rind et. al.’s 1998 study on childhood sexual abuse. This could lead to results that are not as accurate as they would be with a more diverse …show more content…
When a subject as sensitive as childhood sexual abuse is shown in a study to not correlate with the dominant idea on the matter, it will be meticulously dissected for flaws and shortcomings. Each article presented good arguments that tried to disprove the other. I feel as though instead of defending their article Rind et. al. should have done another study. They could have taken the perceived issues into concern to create a more reliant study to help reduce skepticism. I believe the articles against Rind et. al.’s 1998 study were made with intent to point out shortcoming and held legitimate scientific