Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse during forensic interviews are fundamental to the investigation of cases. Research examining the relationship between age and disclosure has shown mixed results; the aim of the current study was to clarify and extend our knowledge by modeling linear, quadratic, and interaction effects of age on disclosure. Child sexual abuse reports made by children, their caregivers, or mandated reporters over a 12-month period to police in one state of Australia were examined. Of the 527 children (age range 3–16 years) offered a forensic interview, 81% disclosed abuse during it. The other 19% did not disclose or refused the interview. Age had both linear and quadratic effects, whereby disclosure increased with age until 11 years, after which disclosure decreased with age to 16 years. The effect of age on disclosure was moderated by five variables: abuse severity, the child–suspect relationship, suspects’ violence histories, delay of report to police, and children’s previous disclosures. Particular groups of children had lower likelihoods of disclosing abuse in forensic interviews than others, such as adolescents who alleged abuse against suspects with histories of violent offending. By identifying these groups, targeted strategies may be developed to help increase their disclosure rates.
ArataC. M. (1998). To tell or not to tell: Current functioning of child sexual abuse survivors who disclosed their victimization. Child Maltreatment, 3, 63–71. doi:10.1177/1077559598003001006
2.
BuntingL. (2008). Sexual offences against children: An exploration of attrition in the Northern Ireland criminal justice system. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 1109–1118. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.09.002
3.
CampisL. B.Hebden-CurtisJ.DeMasoD. R. (1993). Developmental differences in detection and disclosure of sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 920–924. doi:10.1097/00004583-199309000-00005
4.
CederborgA.LambM.LaurellO. (2007). Delay of disclosure, minimization, and denial of abuse when the evidence is unambiguous: A multivictim case. In PipeM. L. M.OrbachY.CederborgA. (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial (pp. 159–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
DiPietroE.RunyanD.FredricksonD. (1997). Predictors of disclosure during medical evaluation for suspected sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6, 133–142. doi:10.1300/J070v06n01_07
6.
FarrellL. T. (1988). Factors that affect a victim’s self-disclosure in father–daughter incest. Child Welfare, 67, 462–468.
7.
FitzgeraldJ. (2006). The attrition of sexual offences from the New South Wales criminal justice system. Contemporary issues in criminal justice (Vol. 92). Sydney, Australia: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
8.
FontanellaC.HarringtonD.ZuravinS. J. (2000). Gender differences in the characteristics and outcomes of sexually abused preschoolers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 9, 21–40. doi:10.1300/J070v09n02_02
Goodman-BrownT. B.EdelsteinR. S.GoodmanG. S.JonesD. P.GordonD. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 525–540. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00037-1
11.
GriesL.GohD.CavanaughJ. (1996). Factors associated with disclosure during child sexual abuse assessment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5, 1–19. doi:10.1300/J070v05n03_01
12.
HershkowitzI.HorowitzD.LambM. (2005). Trends in children’s disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 1203–1214. doi:10.1300/J070v05n03_01
13.
HershkowitzI.LambM. E.KatzC. (2014). Allegation rates in forensic child abuse investigations: Comparing the revised and standard NICHD protocols. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 336–344. doi:10.1037/a0037391
14.
KearyK.FitzpatrickC. (1994). Children’s disclosure of sexual abuse during formal investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 543–548. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(94)90080-9
15.
KoganS. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 147–165. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.014
16.
LambS.Edgar-SmithS. (1994). Aspects of disclosure mediators of outcome of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 307–326. doi:10.1177/088626094009003002
17.
LambM. E.OrbachY.HershkowitzI.EsplinP. W.HorowitzD. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1201–1231. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021
18.
LeclercB.WortleyR. (2015). Predictors of victim disclosure in child sexual abuse: Additional evidence from a sample of incarcerated adult sex offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 43, 104–111. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.003
19.
LievoreD. (2005). No longer silent: A study of women’s help-seeking decisions and service responses to sexual assault. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
20.
LippertT.CrossT.JonesL.WalshW. (2009). Telling interviewers about sexual abuse: Predictors of child disclosure at forensic interview. Child Maltreatment, 14, 100–113. doi:10.1177/088626094009003002
21.
LondonK.BruckM.CeciS. J.ShumanD. W. (2007). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: A review of the contemporary empirical literature. In PipeM.-E.LambM. E.OrbachY.CederborgA.-C. (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial (pp. 11–39). New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
LyonT. D. (2007). False denials: Overcoming methodological biases in abuse disclosure research. In PipeM.-E.LambM. E.OrbachY.CederborgA.-C. (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial (pp. 41–62). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
MalloyL. C.BrubacherA. P.LambM. (2011). Expected consequences of disclosure revealed in investigative interviews with suspected victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 8–19. doi:10.1080/10888691.2011.538616
24.
PipeM.LambM.OrbachY.SternbergK.StewartH.EsplinP. (2007). Factors associated with nondisclosure of suspected abuse during forensic interviews. In PipeM.-E.LambM. E.OrbachY.CederborgA.-C. (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial (pp. 77–96). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
PowellM. B. (2008). Designing effective training programs for investigative interviewers of children. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20, 189–208.
26.
RushE. B.LyonT. D.AhernE. C.QuasJ. A. (2014). Disclosure suspicion bias and abuse disclosure comparisons between sexual and physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 19, 113–118. doi:10.1177/1077559514538114
27.
TangC. S. (2002). Childhood experience of sexual abuse among Hong Kong Chinese college students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 23–37. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00306-4
28.
TeohY. S.LambM. (2013). Interviewer demeanor in forensic interviews of children. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 145–159. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.614610
29.
WundersitzJ. (2003). Child sexual assault: Tracking from police incident report to finalisation in court. South Australia: Office of Crime Statistics and Research.
