1987
DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.2.4.241
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Childhood Sexual Victimization among College Men: Definitional and Methodological Issues

Abstract: Little information exists on the childhood sexual victimization of males as it occurs in nonclinical samples. Employing a broad funnel-type of questionnaire methodology, the current study examined childhood sexual victimization in two samples of college men consisting of 253 and 329 students from a large Midwestern and Southeastern university, respectively. There was general consistency between the two samples in the prevalence and descriptive features of the abuse. However, different definitions of abuse gene… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
54
4
11

Year Published

1994
1994
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
4
54
4
11
Order By: Relevance
“…[13][14][15][16] We focus on the age difference emphasized by Finkelhor, which has several advantages, including simplicity. It does exclude abusive experiences between peers, a potential limitation, though uncommonly reported in our sample.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[13][14][15][16] We focus on the age difference emphasized by Finkelhor, which has several advantages, including simplicity. It does exclude abusive experiences between peers, a potential limitation, though uncommonly reported in our sample.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research on the impact of sexual victimization on males, specifically, is in early stages and, as such, must be interpreted with caution. Limitations among these studies include: a tendency to measure only one type of victim outcome, insufficient attention to how family history and personal characteristics mediate outcomes, a dearth of prospective longitudinal studies, and an over-reliance on convenience samples and retrospective accounts (Forouzan and Van Gijseghem 2005;Fromuth and Burkhart 1987).…”
Section: Overview Of the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low-range estimates include: 3.0% (Kercher and McShane, 1984), 3.8% (Siege1 er a/., 1987), 4.8% (Fritz et al, 1981), Lisak 6.0% (Finkelhor, 1984), 7.3% (Risin and Koss, 1987), 8.0% (Baker and Duncan, 1985) and 8.7% (Finkelhor, 1979). Higher-range estimates include: 11.0% (Murphy, 1987, cited in Urquiza andKeating, 1990), 16% (Finkelhor et al, 1990), 17.3% (Urquiza, 1988, cited in Urquiza andKeating, 1990), 24% (Fromuth and Burkhart, 1987), and 34% (Lisak and Luster, 1994).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%