The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001)

The authors respond to 2 victimological critiques of their 1998 meta-analys is on child sexual abuse (CSA). S. J. Dallam et al. (2001) claimed that B. Rind. P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) committed numerous methodologi cal and statistical errors, and often miscoded and misinterpreted data. The authors show all these claims to be invalid. To the contrary, they demonst rate frequent bias in Dallam et al.'s criticisms. S. J. Ondersma et al. (20 01) claimed that Rind et al.'s study is part of a backlash against psychoth erapists, that its suggestions regarding CSA definitions were extrascientif ic, and that the moral standard is needed to understand CSA scientifically. The authors show their suggestions to have been scientific and argue that it is Ondersma et al.'s issue-framing and moral standard that are extrascie ntific. This reply supports the original methods, analyses, recommendations , and conclusions of Rind et al.