{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019313304721030045, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004291845493562232, 'mean_word_length': 5.22, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Examining the Scientific Validity of Rape Trauma Syndrome

Rape trauma syndrome (RTS) was first described by Burgess and Holmstrom (1974) who argued that there was little information that described the physical and psychological effects of rape, associated therapy and provisions for protection of the victim from further psychological harm. Since then, there have been several critiques of RTS and empirical evidence exists that RTS is not generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Despite this, RTS is still used in courts. As such, in this article, we comprehensively evaluated RTS and determined that it is vague and imprecise, its evidential status is questionable, it is inconsistent with the most common sequelae of trauma, it ignores important mediating variables and it may not be culturally sensitive. In light of these critiques, we recommend no further use of this model in courts or in clinical practice.