Critique of the Goodman study

Overview of what occurred after I requested a review of Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic child abuse by Dr. Gail Goodman, Phillip Shaver, and Bette Bottoms - Diana Napolis, M.A. 

In December 2007 I reviewed the pivotal research study .Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse,. by UC Davis.Dr. Gail Goodman, Dr. Phillip Shaver, and Bette Bottoms, which had been funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1994. Thisbody of work has been used throughout the United States in attempts toprove that the scientific community found no evidence to support thebelief that satanic ritual cult abuse of children was occurring in the United States except in very rare instances. Regardless of the conclusions reached, it appears that there was substantial and persuasive evidence provided to the researchers which indicated that ritual abuse was occurring on a grand scale, despite what appears to have been repeated attempts made to minimize and disguise these findings.

It will be difficult to understand my critique without accessing Dr.Goodman's original study and the 1996 article titled, "An Analysis of Ritualistic and Religion-Related Child Abuse Allegations" by these sameauthors, so I urge others to download this material. In an article published in the New York Times titled, .Proof Lacking for Ritual Abuse by Satanists," by Daniel Goleman, he quoted Dr. Gail Goodman's representations of this  study:
"In a survey of more than 11,000 psychiatric and police workersthroughout the country, conducted for the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, researchers found more than 12,000 accusations ofgroup cult sexual abuse based on satanic ritual, but not one thatinvestigators had been able to substantiate. “ This is a false representation about what this study actually revealed. The researchers did not receive anywhere near that high of a return rate - it was actually less than 2000 reports which were examined, which means there was an intentional and blatant attempt to misrepresent their findingsin this news article. It was discovered that this propaganda is posted on numerous web sites in efforts to prove that satanic crime does  not occur.

On pg. 46 of .Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of RitualisticChild Abuse,. Dr. Goodman also wrote: "One respondent cited as evidence the ritual abuse behavior checklist - a dubious diagnostic checklist which includes many behaviors common to childhood." (Gould, 1986). Dueto that statement, I have posted a copy of Dr. Catherine Gould'schecklist on my web site, and as the reader will see, these are clearly abnormal behaviors of children that are being described and there is nothing dubious about it.
Dr. Goodman concluded by stating: Our research leads us to believe that there are many more children being abused in the name of God than inthe name of Satan.. I found that an odd and inappropriate remark tomake given the fact that Dr. Goodman received more reports of ritualabuse than she received about religion-based abuse. In order to makeher case Dr Goodman used as her examples cases of child abuse or murder which were clearly committed by Christians who were mentally ill, not mainstream Christians, therefore I believe it was inappropriate tosuggest that these crimes were committed in the name of God. The belief systems of mainstream Christianity do not condone criminal or aberrant behavior but the belief systems of Satanists most certainly do and theritual abuse crimes she was reviewing were in line with those satanic beliefs. Therefore, it is obvious that there is much more serious crimecommitted by satanists in the name of Satan. Further, cases of Christian medical neglect are not equivalent in severity to ritualabuse therefore I believe it was inappropriate for these academics to argue against the enactment of ritual abuse laws based on these arguments.

As further evidence which supports my opinion that there were purposeful attempts to distort the facts, after the American Psychological Association (APA) gave Dr. Goodman an award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Applied Research in 2005,Dr. Goodman's response was published in the American Psychologist, November 2005 issue, in an article entitled Wailing Babies in her Wake.She stated in reference to this study:
"Our survey revealed that there was essentially no hard evidence of organized, child abusing, satanic cults that had infiltrated preschools or the FBI or that had kidnapped or slain babies. In contrast there wasmuch indirect evidence of clinical induction of false memories and plentiful evidence of religion-related abuse, including sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Although much of my research indicates that children can have largely accurate memories and can resist strong suggestions, they can, in contrast (as indicated by the dramatic examples of ritual abuse claims) also tell wild tales, cave in to misleading questions, and make important errors. The same is true of some adults, of course. All of the books about personal cases of SRA were written by adults who seem to have believed their own stories."

This pseudo-analysis does not accurately recount the facts either. Dr.Goodman has disseminated further propaganda in other publications and I have updated my critique to reflect this information. These articles are: "Children's Eyewitness Memory: A Modern History and Contemporary Commentary,". Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 62, No.4, 2006, pg. 818;and "Interviewing Children in and out of Court,". The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment, pg. 356. http://members.cox.net/court50/goodmanoverview.pdf
Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse,1994, (Dr. Gail Goodman, Phillip Shaver, Bette Bottoms posted at http://members.cox.net/court50/goodmanstudy.pdf

Critique of Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse,. 2008, (Diana Napolis, M.A) posted at http://members.cox.net/dnap/goodmancritique.pdf
The researchers claimed throughout this study that organized,intergenerational, sexually molesting satanic cults did not exist, andthat a small number of clinicians and agencies were responsible for the most reports of satanic ritual abuse. I am contesting both of these conclusions. In my opinion, there were too many methodological flaws, too much data was arbitrarily excluded, the conclusions reached were unsupportable and not based on the data gathered, and researcher bias, if not blatant manipulation, was prevalent throughout this researchstudy.
I believe that there were ongoing attempts by the researchers to psychologically manipulate the reader into disbelieving that certain satanic practices existed by making value judgments about these practices from the start. The researchers continued to categorize reports of torture, cannibalism and murder as "bizarre" and "extreme,"and by the continual usage of those "buzz words," it served as a"thought stopping" propaganda technique, intended to influence the reader into agreeing with the researchers assessments and conclusions. As unfortunate as it is, these are the practices of satanists and blackmagic practitioners world wide which a Lexis/Nexis search of "satan" "devil worship" and "ritual" would reveal.
Overall, there were too many serious methodological errors and omissions in this study to ignore and, in some instances, I believe, the researchers were caught in outright fabrications.

An Analysis of Ritualistic and Religion-Related Child Abuse Allegations, 1996, (Bottoms, Shaver, Goodman) posted at http://www.uic.edu/labs/pll/Bottoms-Shaver-Goodman-1996-lhb.pdf