CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,144Child Abuse and TraumaMilitary, Security, and Education StudiesSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

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

Paolucci, Elizabeth ODDONE, Genuis, Mark L., Violato, Claudio·2001·The Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.1080/00223980109603677
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00223980109603677

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis of child sexual abuse found no differences based on victim-offender relationship.

    “Similarly, a meta-analysis of psychopathology related to child sexual abuse did not find differences based on victim-offender relationship (Paolucci & Genuis, 2001)”

    From Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Paolucci & Genuis, 2001

  • A second meta-analysis found no gender differences in the link between child sexual abuse and psychopathology.

    “and a second also did not identify gender differences in the association between child sexual abuse and psychopathology (Paolucci & Genuis, 2001).”

    From Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Paolucci & Genuis, 2001

  • Earlier meta-analyses that covered multiple psychopathology domains did not statistically compare those domains.

    “and those that assessed multiple domains of psychopathology did not conduct statistical comparisons across domains (e.g., Chen et al., 2010; Golding, 1999; Paolucci & Genuis, 2001).”

    From Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Paolucci & Genuis, 2001

  • A meta-analysis failed to find differences in psychopathology between penetrative and nonpenetrative child sexual abuse.

    “a meta-analysis failed to find differences in psychopathology between penetrative and nonpenetrative child sexual abuse (Paolucci & Genuis, 2001)”

    From Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Paolucci & Genuis, 2001

  • The consequences of sexual abuse range from minimal effects to more serious problems, with social, emotional and/or psychiatric repercussions.

    “the consequences of sexual abuse range from minimal effects to more serious problems, with social, emotional and/or psychiatric repercussions (Habigzang, Borges, Dell'Aglio, & Koller, 2010;Kendall-Tackett et al., 1993;Paolucci et al., 2001;Wherry, Baldwin, Junco, & Floyd, 2013).”

    From Psychological and Behavioral Indicators in the Forensic Assessment of Child Sexual Abuse (2018) · cites this paper as Paolucci et al., 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Paolucci, E. O., Genuis, M. L., & Violato, C.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2001-01
Volume
135
Issue
1
Pages
17-36
ISSN
  • 0022-3980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-1019
DOI
10.1080/00223980109603677
OpenAlex
W2017439967
Cited by
1,144
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 72 · 2012: 59
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Military, Security, and Education Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
child sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicide, promiscuity, academic performance, long-term effects of abuse, mediators
MeSH terms
Child, Child Abuse, Sexual, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Suicide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review