Your intuition is correct, 5% isn't correct. From another comment I made in this thread: "In a few cases (N < 5) families were dropped from the comparison grou

Your intuition is correct, 5% isn't correct. From another comment I made in this thread: "In a few cases (N < 5) families were dropped from the comparison group because some history of sexual abuse was ascertained." I think you are misinterpreting. First, they say: "...information was obtained about any possible unwanted sexual experiences of the comparison females or other family members" So interpreting it as 5 of 84 women is incorrect. It's min 5 people of 84 families. Given a mean family size of perhaps 3.5 (if by "family" they mean "nuclear family", though I bet they include anyone you know about really--Uncle Bob would count, and one report per family with reports) it's more like 5 out of 294 people, or 1.7%. And I don't think they share their exclusion criteria, which isn't a good sign. And there's a significant selection bias given how they recruited (in a newspaper, for people who have the free time and/or low wealth enough to want to do a study, and in particular on female growth and development).