Measuring Pedophilic Sexual Interest

Abstract

Introduction Pedophilic sexual interest is an important risk factor in sexual offender recidivism and remains a key component in the clinical assessment of child sexual offenders and people diagnosed with pedophilia. Despite concerns about the absence of universally accepted standardized clinical assessment methods, there are a number of established techniques aimed at assessing people with sexual interest in children. Aim To provide a foundation from which to understand existing methods available for the assessment of people with pedophilic sexual interests, including strengths and limitations of each approach. Methods A group of clinical experts provide a clinically oriented, narrative review on assessment methods for pedophilic sexual interest, including the rationale behind each method and its implementation. Evidence on validity supporting the techniques, limitations, and ethical issues is also discussed. Results The assessment methods were grouped according to the following categories: self-report, genital psychophysiological assessment, indirect measurement, and behavioral measurement of pedophilic interest. Although most techniques performed well in discriminating child sexual offenders with pedophilic interest from distinct comparison groups, there are several limitations, including the current lack of standardization and the ethical challenges posed by this sensitive area. Clinical implications An understanding of the different measures available for the assessment of problematic sexual interests plays a vital role in forensic clinical determinations of risk of recidivism and in the identification of treatment targets for men who have committed sexual offenses. Several independent but complimentary methods exist to assess sexual interest. Ongoing work on the international standardization of assessment based on methodologically sound research aimed at determining best practices will address some of the shortcomings of these assessments while improving their reliability. Strengths & limitations This article provides a general review on a number of methods aimed at assessing pedophilic interest. However, these methods mirror clinical practice largely used within North America and parts of continental Europe. As a result of cultural differences, opposing paradigms on assessment and treatment of pedophilia, and diverse legal regulation between jurisdictions and countries, these practices may not be applicable on an international scale where other special procedures may be required. Conclusion A number of techniques have been used within clinical and research settings that vary from self-report to objective measures. Most methods have demonstrated efficacy. Continued work to combine evidence and experience from diverse populations and multiple countries will improve the quality of the methods available.

International overview of phallometric testing for sexual offending behaviour and sexual risk

“…However, Babchishin et al 19 found from a large sample that over 80% of PCSOs against children were unable to successfully inhibit their sexual arousal to children when instructed to do so. Some laboratories check examinees' attention to the stimuli by asking them to describe it 20 or by videoing their upper body. 14 Third, the specificity of phallometry is an important consideration owing to the potential implications of incorrectly identifying an examinee with a PSI.…”

Use of penile plethysmography in the court: A review of practices in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States

“…Deviant response profiles are not an indication of guilt for the commission of a past offense (Carvalho et al, 2020;Demidova et al, 2019;Fedoroff et al, 2009;. PPG does not act as a "lie detector" and should never be used when determining culpability for a particular offense.…”

“…Regardless of research that has found an association between deviant arousal patterns, as measured by PPG, and an individual's risk of recidivism (Hanson & Morton‐Bourgon, , , , ), PPG cannot act as a determination of guilt or innocence for a person accused of a sexual offense. Deviant response profiles are not an indication of guilt for the commission of a past offense (Carvalho et al, ; Demidova et al, ; Fedoroff et al, ; Murphy, Ranger, Stewart, et al, ). PPG does not act as a “lie detector” and should never be used when determining culpability for a particular offense.…”

“…Different cases may have variations in the level of detail heard by the court about PPG explanations and outcomes. It has been noted that some courts specifically prefer the use of PPG as an objective measure of sexual interest as compared with the less reliable self‐report (Carvalho et al, in press; Purcell et al, ).…”

“…Prior to the development of PPG techniques, clinicians assessing individuals concerning their sexual interests and arousal patterns relied primarily on self‐report for evaluations of risk, treatment needs, and assessment of outcomes. Relying solely on uncorroborated self‐report can be quite problematic when the individual undergoing assessment may have motivations to not be forthcoming about their interests and behaviors (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers [ATSA], ; Carvalho, Briken, Murphy, Bradford, & Fedoroff, ; Fedoroff et al, ; Murphy et al, ; Purcell, Chandler, & Fedoroff, ). Examples of cases in which forensic opinions may significantly affect determinations about the examinee may include child services investigations, criminal and civil cases, and assessments for Dangerous Offender (DO) or Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) designations.…”