Sexual Sadism Among Sex Offenders in Switzerland

Abstract

The Sexual Sadism Scale (SeSaS) was developed to assist in the diagnosis of sexual sadism, and it revealed adequate psychometric properties in prior research. This study cross validated the SeSaS in Switzerland using a sample of 179 male sex offenders. Specifically, the SeSaS conformed to a Mokken model of double monotonicity (scalability coefficient [ H] = .46, coefficient of reproducibility [CR] = .89), indicating that it measures a unidimensional construct of sexual sadism with hierarchically ordered items. The reliability of the scale was acceptable to high (ρ = .80, λ2 = .75, κ = .88). In addition, the SeSaS was strongly associated with sexual sadism diagnoses based on mental health manuals ( rpb = .60, odds ratio [OR] = 13.02, area under the curve [AUC] = 1) but not with recidivism. The results suggest that the use of the SeSaS may improve the validity and reliability of sexual sadism diagnoses, therefore playing a role in the assessment and management of sex offenders.

Sexual Sadism and Psychopathy in Sexual Homicide Offenders: An Exploration of Their Associates in a Clinical Sample

“…The proportion diagnosed by DSM-IV is in the middle of that reported in previous studies (Firestone et al, 1998; Grubin, 1994a; Hill et al, 2006; Langevin et al, 1988; Proulx, Blais, & Beauregrd, 2007; Myers et al, 2010), and the number identified by the SeSaS is almost identical to a large U.K. sample (Stefanska et al, 2019). Strong correlations between DSM and SeSaS accord with other studies of sexual offenders (Gonçalves et al, 2018; Nitschke et al, 2009) and sexual homicide offenders (Stefanska et al, 2019). Whether those with DSM-IV sadism who screened out with SeSaS were missed or misdiagnosed is unclear.…”

“…A dimensional approach using objective behaviour appeared appropriate (Marshall & Hucker, 2006), eventuating in the Sexual Sadism Scale (SeSaS), part one of which is an 11-item scale of severe sexual sadism (Nitschke et al, 2013; Nitschke, Osterheider, & Mokros, 2009). It has been validated in a number of countries (Gonçalves, Rossegger, Gerth, Singh, & Endrass, 2018; Longpré, Proulx, & Brouillette-Alarie, 2018; Mokros, Schilling, Eher, & Nitschke, 2012; Mokros, Schilling, Weiss, Nitschke, & Eher, 2014; Nitschke, Osterheider, & Mokros, 2009; Stefanska, Nitschke, Carter, & Mokros, 2019) and measures the severe end of the Agonistic Continuum of coercive, controlling, aggressive, and injurious sexual behaviour (Knight, Sims-Knight, & Guay, 2013).…”

Death in Sadistic Sexual Crimes: A Neural Network Analysis of Factors Associated With a Lethal Outcome

“…Sexual sadism was assessed with the Sexual Sadism Scale (SeSaS) created by Nitschke et al (2009). This assessment tool was chosen because findings from previous studies indicated that it was strongly related to the clinical diagnosis of sexual sadism (Gonçalves et al, 2020; Longpré, Proulx, & Brouillette-Alarie, 2018; Mokros et al, 2012; Nitschke et al, 2009). Initially, the tool was divided into two parts (Mokros et al, 2014).…”

Hunting for Snarks: A Reply to McPhail (2019a)

“…It is noteworthy that contrary to McPhail's interpretation, Reale (2017; see also Reale, Beauregard, & Martineau, 2017) concluded that a three cluster solution identified subgroups (non-sadists, mixed group, and sadists) that differed only in severity and supported the hypothesis that sexual sadism is a dimension. The notion of sexual sadism as a dimension have been supported by several recent empirical studies on both sexual offenders and sexual murderers (e.g., Gonçalves, Rossegger, & Gerth, 2019;Longpré, Guay, & Knight, 2019a;Stefanska, Nitschke, Carter, & Mokros, 2019). Longpré et al's (2018) failure to test the possibility of a threecluster model with latent profile analysis (LPA) and noted that Mokros et al (2014) only tested 1-class versus 2-class models with LPA, finding that both models fit the data equally well.…”