mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006876.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "41",
    "document_number": "452-2",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-2 Filed 11/12/21 Page 41 of 45 Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape SD = 103.3; t(314) = 4.06, p < 0.001). Mean and median time to seek help were 37.7 and 12.0 weeks, respectively. Mean time to seek help did not differ between groups (t(309) = 2.54, p < 0.48). Excluding outliers (M ± 3 SD, N = 11) did not change the outcome of this analysis. Both early and delayed disclosers scored in the highest level of psychological distress when compared to previously reported norm scores (CRTI, Alisic, Eland, Huijbregts, & Kleber, 2012; CDI, Timbrement et al., 2008; YSR, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; SCL-90, Arrindell & Ettema, 1986), but the MANCOVA results showed that when comparing multiple continuous psychological scores, the overall psychological functioning (posttraumatic stress, depression, behavioural problems, and general psychopathology) did not differ significantly between early and delayed disclosers (F(6,198) = 0.88, p = 0.51). Table 3 shows the ORs with 95% CIs for the associations between potential risk factors and delayed disclosure. Delayed disclosers, when compared to early disclosers, were significantly more likely to be in the age category of 12–17 years (OR = 2.10), to have experienced rape by a close person (OR = 2.35), to have been threatened verbally and/or with a weapon (OR = 1.75), and to have experienced penetration (OR = 1.99). Delayed disclosers were also found less likely to have used alcohol prior to the rape (OR = 0.22). None of the other factors were found to be significant risk factors for delayed disclosure. Predicting delayed disclosure A stepwise forward LR analysis was conducted to predict delayed disclosure, using “age category,” “close assailant,” “use of threats,” and “penetration” as predictors. Victims’ alcohol use was not entered in the analysis because of missing values for 33.4% of the cases. The use of threats was not a significant predictor in the model. A test of the full model against a constant-only model was statistically significant, indicating that the predictors (i.e., age category 12–17 years, close assailant, penetration) reliably distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (χ2 (3) = 23.09, p < 0.000). There were no significant interactions between the predictors. Nagelkerke’s R2 of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predictors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer–Lemeshow χ2 (4) = 2.77, p < 0.60). In total, 62% of the respondents were categorized correctly, when using the three predictors that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure: age category 12–17 years (OR 2.05, CI 1.13– 3.73), penetration (OR 2.36, CI 1.25–4.46), and closeness to the assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52–4.60). Discussion The results of this study show that, although no differences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek help, delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. Furthermore, this study identified a number of factors related to the timing of rape disclosure, showing that delayed disclosers represented significantly more adolescents than young adults, significantly more victims of penetration than assault, significantly more victims who were threatened than not threatened, and significantly more victims who were close with the assailant. The finding that delayed disclosers are less likely to utilize medical services and report to the police than early disclosers is in line with previous studies in adult women (Ahrens et al., 2010; Ullman, 1996; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). It suggests that disclosure latency is important for public health and safety, as delayed disclosure may not only impede reception of proper medical care, such as treating anogenital injuries and preventing the onset of STDs and unwanted pregnancy (Linden, 2011), but also impede the forensic investigation and apprehension of the assailant (Lacy & Stark, 2013). Three variables were identified that successfully predicted delayed disclosure: age category 12–17 years, penetration, and the assailant being a close person. The finding that the victim’s age significantly predicts disclosure latency is in line with previous research showing that adolescents are at a greater risk for delayed disclosure when compared to their older counterparts (Kogan, 2004; Smith et al., 2000). Adolescents may be less able to overcome the barriers to disclose, including factors such as assailant tactics for maintaining secrecy, stigma that often accompanies rape, and fear that their parents would consequently limit their freedom (Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito, 2004). Also, as victims approach adulthood, they may possess more information about their rights and options after victimization, and have more possibilities for whom to disclose. In our study, most adolescents disclosed the rape event to peers, in line with prior research (Crisma et al., 2004; Priebe & Svedin, 2008). The use of penetration was found to make victims more likely to postpone disclosure, opposite to the results from Priebe and Svedlin (2008), but in line with an older study by Arata (1998), who found that more severe forms of sexual abuse were associated with less disclosure. Penetration may influence disclosure latency through a variety of mechanisms. It could be argued that more severe rape, indicated by the use of penetration, is more likely to be accompanied by extensive coercive use of tactics to maintain the victim’s silence, with fear of reprisal possibly contributing to the finding of delayed disclosure (Kogan, 2004). Also, adolescents may think that social reactions in response to disclosure are more negative in case of completed rape compared to assault. Another factor that seems to make immediate disclosure of rape less likely is closeness to the assailant, as indicated by the assailant being a (boy)friend, family",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-2 Filed 11/12/21 Page 41 of 45 Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SD = 103.3; t(314) = 4.06, p < 0.001). Mean and median time to seek help were 37.7 and 12.0 weeks, respectively. Mean time to seek help did not differ between groups (t(309) = 2.54, p < 0.48). Excluding outliers (M ± 3 SD, N = 11) did not change the outcome of this analysis. Both early and delayed disclosers scored in the highest level of psychological distress when compared to previously reported norm scores (CRTI, Alisic, Eland, Huijbregts, & Kleber, 2012; CDI, Timbrement et al., 2008; YSR, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; SCL-90, Arrindell & Ettema, 1986), but the MANCOVA results showed that when comparing multiple continuous psychological scores, the overall psychological functioning (posttraumatic stress, depression, behavioural problems, and general psychopathology) did not differ significantly between early and delayed disclosers (F(6,198) = 0.88, p = 0.51). Table 3 shows the ORs with 95% CIs for the associations between potential risk factors and delayed disclosure. Delayed disclosers, when compared to early disclosers, were significantly more likely to be in the age category of 12–17 years (OR = 2.10), to have experienced rape by a close person (OR = 2.35), to have been threatened verbally and/or with a weapon (OR = 1.75), and to have experienced penetration (OR = 1.99). Delayed disclosers were also found less likely to have used alcohol prior to the rape (OR = 0.22). None of the other factors were found to be significant risk factors for delayed disclosure.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Predicting delayed disclosure A stepwise forward LR analysis was conducted to predict delayed disclosure, using “age category,” “close assailant,” “use of threats,” and “penetration” as predictors. Victims’ alcohol use was not entered in the analysis because of missing values for 33.4% of the cases. The use of threats was not a significant predictor in the model. A test of the full model against a constant-only model was statistically significant, indicating that the predictors (i.e., age category 12–17 years, close assailant, penetration) reliably distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (χ2 (3) = 23.09, p < 0.000). There were no significant interactions between the predictors. Nagelkerke’s R2 of 10.5% suggests only a modest association between the predictors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer–Lemeshow χ2 (4) = 2.77, p < 0.60). In total, 62% of the respondents were categorized correctly, when using the three predictors that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure: age category 12–17 years (OR 2.05, CI 1.13– 3.73), penetration (OR 2.36, CI 1.25–4.46), and closeness to the assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52–4.60).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Discussion The results of this study show that, although no differences were found between delayed and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seek help, delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services and to report to the police than early disclosers. Furthermore, this study identified a number of factors related to the timing of rape disclosure, showing that delayed disclosers represented significantly more adolescents than young adults, significantly more victims of penetration than assault, significantly more victims who were threatened than not threatened, and significantly more victims who were close with the assailant. The finding that delayed disclosers are less likely to utilize medical services and report to the police than early disclosers is in line with previous studies in adult women (Ahrens et al., 2010; Ullman, 1996; Ullman & Filipas, 2001). It suggests that disclosure latency is important for public health and safety, as delayed disclosure may not only impede reception of proper medical care, such as treating anogenital injuries and preventing the onset of STDs and unwanted pregnancy (Linden, 2011), but also impede the forensic investigation and apprehension of the assailant (Lacy & Stark, 2013). Three variables were identified that successfully predicted delayed disclosure: age category 12–17 years, penetration, and the assailant being a close person. The finding that the victim’s age significantly predicts disclosure latency is in line with previous research showing that adolescents are at a greater risk for delayed disclosure when compared to their older counterparts (Kogan, 2004; Smith et al., 2000). Adolescents may be less able to overcome the barriers to disclose, including factors such as assailant tactics for maintaining secrecy, stigma that often accompanies rape, and fear that their parents would consequently limit their freedom (Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito, 2004). Also, as victims approach adulthood, they may possess more information about their rights and options after victimization, and have more possibilities for whom to disclose. In our study, most adolescents disclosed the rape event to peers, in line with prior research (Crisma et al., 2004; Priebe & Svedin, 2008). The use of penetration was found to make victims more likely to postpone disclosure, opposite to the results from Priebe and Svedlin (2008), but in line with an older study by Arata (1998), who found that more severe forms of sexual abuse were associated with less disclosure. Penetration may influence disclosure latency through a variety of mechanisms. It could be argued that more severe rape, indicated by the use of penetration, is more likely to be accompanied by extensive coercive use of tactics to maintain the victim’s silence, with fear of reprisal possibly contributing to the finding of delayed disclosure (Kogan, 2004). Also, adolescents may think that social reactions in response to disclosure are more negative in case of completed rape compared to assault. Another factor that seems to make immediate disclosure of rape less likely is closeness to the assailant, as indicated by the assailant being a (boy)friend, family",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883 (page number not for citation purpose) 5 DOJ-OGR-00006876",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "European Journal of Psychotraumatology"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2015",
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "452-2",
      "25883",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006876"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to a rape case, with a focus on the predictors of delayed disclosure. The text is written in a formal and academic tone, with references to various studies and statistical analyses. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}