Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2006 Mar 14.
Published in final edited form as: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Dec;73(6):1116–1124. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1116

Table 1.

Bivariate Comparisons of CSA Survivors Versus Participants th No History of CSA: Wave 1

Variable CSA survivors (n = 245) Other participants (n = 487) t or χ2 Effect size (d or M)
Woman’s Sexual Behavior
 Lifetime STI (%) 39.3% 20.3% 29.90*** .20
 STI from Wave 1 partner (%) 5.4% 2.7% 3.46b .07
 Lifetime Partners a
  M 6.62 5.29 5.03*** .40
  SD 3.37 3.35
 Age of first consensual intercourse
  M 16.41 16.92 3.64*** .19
  SD 2.78 2.47
 How soon intercourseb
  M 3.03 2.88 1.93# .16
  SD 0.90 0.93
Partner Aggression
 Physical aggression
  M 0.46 0.35 1.94# .16
  SD 0.73 0.66
 Sexual aggression
  M 0.30 0.18 3.29# .25
  SD 0.54 0.42
 Psychological aggression
  M 0.25 0.20 1.38 .12
  SD 0.43 0.40
Partner Sexual Risk Partner lifetime partnersa,c
  M 6.80 5.57 2.78** .22
  SD 5.90 5.07
 Partner infidelity
  M 1.82 1.54 3.15** .26
  SD 1.13 1.01

Note. CSA = childhood sexual abuse.

a

For display purposes, categorical response categories were replaced with approximations of the actual number of partners, that is, the category representing 5-10 partners was recoded as 7.5 partners.

b

Recoded so that higher values indicate having sex sooner in the relationship.

c

“I don’t know” responses were recoded as the sample mean.

#

p < .06.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.