contact (e.g., fondling of breasts) to penetration. F: 42% (non-contact), 36% (contact), 7% (penetrative) Note: M = Male, F = Female Conclusion This Resource Sheet has reviewed recent studies that have estimated the prevalence of child abuse and neglect in Australia, and explained some of the reasons why these estimates can vary so significantly. Measuring the extent of child maltreatment is not an easy undertaking. Definitions of abuse and neglect differ from study to study. While some behaviours are considered to be abusive by almost all people (e.g., sexual abuse), other behaviours are more equivocal (e.g., exhibitionism, smacking), and their inclusion or exclusion in particular maltreatment studies can lead to widely divergent findings. There are also considerable practical and ethical difficulties involved in the measurement of maltreatment, which can influence prevalence estimates. For example, the sensitive nature of the topic may deter some people from participating in research or necessitate therapeutic support after a disclosure of maltreatment is made. The variance in prevalence figures signals that care is needed when interpreting and discussing study findings. Meaningful discussion of the prevalence rates of child abuse and neglect precludes unqualified statements such as "X percent of children are maltreated". The behaviours that are being defined as maltreatment should always be identified, and, given the limited data currently available in Australia, a range of prevalence estimates should be given. Popular conceptions of child abuse can differ considerably from the academic definitions used to generate prevalence estimates. When high maltreatment prevalence figures are presented