Cited by 76Child Abuse and TraumaSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesMilitary, Security, and Education Studies

Patterns of Disclosure in Child Sexual Abuse

Collings, Steven J., Griffiths, Sacha, Kumalo, Mandisa·2005·South African Journal of Psychology

Abstract

This study examined patterns of disclosure in a sample of 1 737 cases of child sexual abuse (1 614 girls and 123 boys) reported in the North Durban policing area of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, during the period January 2001 to December 2003. A content analysis of disclosure patterns identified two broad dimensions of disclosure (Agency: child-initiated disclosure versus detection by a third party, and Temporal duration: an event versus a process); with these disclosure dimensions defining four discrete categories of disclosure: purposeful disclosure (30% of cases), indirect disclosure (9% of cases), eyewitness detection (18% of cases), and accidental detection (43% of cases). A multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that disclosure patterns were independently predicted by the victim's age, the nature of the victim-perpetrator relationship, the offender's age, the frequency of abuse, and reporting latency. The implications of the findings for primary prevention, forensic interviewing practice, and future research are discussed in detail.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/008124630503500207

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Victims of intrafamilial abuse when the offender is a parent, caregiver, significant family member, or someone in a family-like role are less likely to disclose immediately or at all in childhood/adolescence.

    “Victims of intrafamilial abuse when the offender is a parent, caregiver, significant family member, or someone in a family-like role are less likely to disclose immediately or at all in childhood/adolescence because of obvious power differentials and dependency needs (Collings et al., 2005; Dumont et al., 2014; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Paine & Hansen, 2002;”
  • In Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005), the mean age of purposeful disclosures (10.67) was higher than the mean age of indirect disclosures (5.84).

    “Mean age of purposeful disclosures (10.67) was higher than the mean age of indirect disclosures (5.84).”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000–2016) (2019) · cites this paper as Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005).

  • In Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005), four discrete categories of disclosure were defined: purposeful disclosure (30% of cases), indirect disclosure (9% of cases), eyewitness detection (18% of cases), and accidental detection (43% of cases).

    “These disclosure dimensions defined four discrete categories of disclosure: (1) purposeful disclosure (30% of cases), (2) indirect disclosure (9% of cases), (3) eyewitness detection (18% of cases), and (4) accidental detection (43% of cases).”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000–2016) (2019) · cites this paper as Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005).

  • In Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005), content analysis identified two broad dimensions of disclosure: agency (child-initiated disclosure versus detection by a third party) and temporal duration (an event versus a process).

    “Content analysis identified two broad dimensions of disclosure: (1) agency: child-initiated disclosure versus detection by a third party and (2) temporal duration: an event versus a process.”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000–2016) (2019) · cites this paper as Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005).

  • In Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005), disclosure was independently predicted by victim's age, nature of the victim-perpetrator relationship, offender's age, frequency of abuse, and reporting latency.

    “Disclosure independently predicted by victim’s age, nature of the victim–perpetrator relationship, offender’s age, frequency of abuse, and reporting latency.”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000–2016) (2019) · cites this paper as Collings, Griffiths, and Kumalo (2005).

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Collings, S. J., Griffiths, S., & Kumalo, M.
Affiliations
University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
Corresponding author
Collings, Steven J.
Venue
South African Journal of Psychology
Published
2005-06
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
270-285
ISSN
0081-2463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1553795799
Cited by
75
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
South African Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
South Africa Netherlands research Programme on Alternatives in Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Military, Security, and Education Studies
Keywords
child sexual abuse, disclosure patterns, victim-offender relationship, victim age, age of offenders, abuse frequency, forensic interviewing, primary prevention

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