Psychopathology associated with sexual abuse: the importance of complementary designs and common ground

In their recent longitudinal study of youth victimization and consequent traumatization, S. Boney-McCoy and D. Finkelhor (1996) contrast their position with previous retrospective research (S. Harter, P. Alexander, & R. A. Neimeyer, 1988; M. R. Nash, T. C. Hulsey, M. C. Sexton, T. L. Harralson, & W. Lambert, 1993a), arguing that their data support the impact of victimization per se, independent of the moderating effect of family environment. Because Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor's argument may misrepresent the results of such studies, this article (a) clarifies the actual findings of previous retrospective studies of abuse, (b) suggests methodological limitations both in Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor's research and in that of S. Harter et al., 1998, and M. R. Nash et al., 1993a, that should be remedied by future investigators, and (c) argues that both retrospective clinical research and prospective community surveys converge on a common ground, namely, that specific abuse experiences can best be understood and investigated in the context of the prior, contemporaneous, and subsequent family environments in which they occur.