Did you notice on the web site you posted (and have pasted from) that while claiming CDC authorship, the reference note doesn't list the CDC, but rather a non-juried publication?Here are some unquestionable sources:
A 2005 study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, on San Diego Kaiser Permanente HMO members, reported that 16% of males were sexually abused by the age of 18.1 ...
In fact, in the entire article's supporting notes, only two of the cited sources are peer-reviewed, juried publications.
It's easy to be taken in by a list of citations and sources, and unless you have some academic and professional experience you can be hoodwinked pretty thoroughly. Even with citation from juried journals, it's possible to get an invalid impression if the person citing that source doesn't include and account for the peer reviews and countervailing research results.
A research project is not considered "reliable" unless it meets certain criteria in it's design and execution. It must also stand up to the classic "reliability values": Test-Retest, Inter-Test, and Inter-Testor reliabilities. For social science research there're also two more: Inter-regional and Inter-Cultural.
Most of the "studies" that one hears bandied around issues never meet and withstand the scrutiny all of these criteria.
(Just trying to free you from inordinate respect for lists of sources. You really DO have to do more than scratch the surface.)