Circuito Electrónico

A basic form of the internal map derived from similarity judgments was supported by the data from those with a history of CSA. Although the overlap of specific inter-item distances between the CSA clients’ self-report MDS map and the MDS similarity map was only moderate (r = .404, gl = 0.14), canonical correlation indicated that two of the three

dimensions MDS were significant (Rc = 0.813, R2 = 0.677, p < 0.0005). While there were

differences in how items were perceived to be similar in meaning and which items were reported to co-occur after abuse, the judgments for both of these tasks were generated using the same important aspects or criteria (dimensions).

In addition, PCA extracted a four-factor structure from the CSA client’s self-report data, accounting for over 30% of the variance. Agreement between two different types of analyses (MDS vs. PCA) of client data was determined by visual item overlap. Items that exemplified the two poles of the three dimensions in the MDS map also loaded high on factors in the PCA solution. Two factors / dimensions were found to correspond between these methodological approaches, despite additional differences in sample (lay/expert vs. CSA client) and focus (similarity task vs. self-report). This replicated empirical two- dimensional RESA map, shown in Figure 4, forms the underlying framework for further discussion. Hyperarousal/anxiety Avoidant/ Internalising Risk-taking/ Externalising

Blame/ Low self-esteem

Figure 4. Basic two-dimensional RESA framework.

Within the RESA framework, nine regions of frequently co-occurring or most salient items formed the best approximation of response patterns (hotspots). Table 1 delineates the nine hotspots by listing the items most associated with them. Items at the top of each list lie in closest proximity to that cluster’s core, hence contributed the most to the hotspot’s interpretation. Items italicised in Table 1 represent these RESA items classified as efforts to cope rather than an effect of CSA. As earlier discussed in Chapter Two, this classification was based on the reports from Sensitive Claims practitioners and a review of the sexual abuse literature.

Table 1

Commonly Reported Item Groups Showing Effects/Coping Strategies Reported by 113 Adults with a History of CSA

Hotspot label Hotspot items

Avoidant Avoid socialising or mixing with people, Enjoy

being alone, Avoid certain places or activities, Avoid talking about the past, Trouble trusting others

(e.g., friends, partner)

Anxious/fearful Frightened to be alone, On edge, Trouble breathing,

Suddenly scared for no reason, Nightmares or bad

dreams, Feeling unsafe

Shame/low self-esteem Feel humiliated, Afraid of what other people think

about me, Feel worthless, Lonely, Ashamed of self

Pessimistic/depressed Bad things continue to happen, Pessimistic about

the future, Feel worthless, Thoughts about ending my own life, Numb

Sexual difficulties Sexual problems (e.g., cannot get aroused),

Sexually unsatisfied, Ashamed about my own sexual behaviour, Embarrassed if others talk about sex, Easily disgusted, Engage in sexual activity to

make things go my way

Somatic complaints Irregular or severe menstrual periods, Chronic pain

(e.g. arms, lower back), Trouble breathing, Feeling unsafe, Irregular eating habits (eat a lot and then nothing)

Arousal Trouble concentrating, Lack of energy, Easily

Pessimistic/self-harming Thoughts about ending my own life, Lie without

meaning to, Hurt myself on purpose (e.g. cutting, burning),Pessimistic about the future, Feel

worthless, Bad things continue to happen

Impulsive/risk-taking Drink regularly, Act on the spur of the moment,

Drink and drive, Hot-tempered, Engage in unsafe activities (e.g. invite strangers into house, walk

alone at night), Fantasies about hurting others

Note. All coping efforts are italicised in this table.

Values assigned by clients to the each of the items in Table 1 were combined in weighted sums, yielding a score for each hotspot. Several hotspots were clearly recovered as representing a coping strategy. Avoidance, sexual difficulties, self-harm, and impulsive/risk-taking behaviours all contain RESA coping items with only one or two ambiguous (effect) items assigned to each hotspot. Somatic complaints and pessimistic/depressed both show an agglomeration of effect and coping items, hence are assumed to play a role in both processes. Anxiety/fearfulness, shame/low self-esteem and arousal all comprise RESA items of CSA effects. The hotspot analysis supports this study’s previous results by lay persons and experts, in that sexual abuse sequelae is manifested separately as effects and coping processes. In order to simultaneously display participant’s self-report on effect and coping efforts, their accumulated score on each hotspot is illustrated as a profile. Profiles are used to display patterns of effects and coping efforts to investigate consistent responses among those who reported a history of CSA.

In order to view consistencies within the sample of CSA clients, hierarchical clustering first determined the appropriate number of similar profiles in the data set of 113 CSA clients scoring across nine hotspots. Analysis and dendrogram suggested that all CSA profiles can be reduced to five coherent clusters of profiles (χ²(8) = 22.128, p < .005)

(Appendix K). Then to optimise the assignment of all CSA clients to these five clusters, k- means cluster analysis was applied with k=5.

The non-trauma control group data was collected using the same RESA items and procedure as well as hotspot and cluster analyses as the CSA client sample. Three sub- group profiles were selected to summarise all non-traumatised participants based on the Ward’s method dendrogram (Appendix L). Using k=3 for the subsequent k-means analysis, over 51% (N=15) of all non-trauma participants were assigned to one cluster. The remaining two non-trauma clusters each summarised approximately 24% of the non- trauma participants (N=7).