THE EVALUATION OF SEXUAL OFFENDERSRISK FACTORSBROWNE, K .D ., FOREMAN, L ., & MIDDLETON,

them . Through citation of a study conducted byPrentky et al . (1989) in which it was found that fantasy was related to offending in serial killers,
Grubin argued that while fantasy is a risk factor it
is not clear why certain people act upon them andothers do not . This point is supported by discussionof the study conducted by Gosselin and Wilson(1980) in which it was found that sadistic fantasy
was incredibly common but it does not always leadto sexual offending. In order to understand theimpact fantasy has on behavior, clinicians mustevaluate other risk factors. Grubin claimed that thepresence of personality disorders, pervasive inadequacy, historical/behavioral variables, isolation,and empathy may play a role in facilitating thatlink. There was a discussion of the studies conducted by Grubin (1994) and Grubin & Gunn
(1991) in which the sexual murderers in their sample differed from the rapists in the degree of socialand emotional isolation they experienced . The
author urged that this variable be examined in conjunction with other variables contributing to risk
and serve as an indicator of underlying disorder,
particularly in regards to empathy . In essence, ahybrid of actuarial and clinical assessment would
be necessary in order to evaluate the importance ofsocial and emotional isolation .

D.

(1998) . PREDICTING TREATMENT DROP-OUT IN SEXOFFENDERS . CHILD ABUSE REVIEW, 7, 402-419 .

Researchers attempted to evaluate the impact of 30
risk factors upon treatment drop out in a sample of
96 sex offenders . Of these factors, nine showed significance in discerning those offenders who would
comply with treatment from offenders who would
drop out . These factors were organized in a mannerthat allowed them to address criminal history, present situation, history, psychological problems, andresponsiveness to treatment . Among the factors thatshowed significance included having spent time inprison, having a violence-related index offense,
non-contact offenses, unemployment, substanceabuse, and delinquent/disruptive behavior during
treatment. However, the authors found that a history of sexual offending or childhood victimization
did not affect treatment outcome .
GRUBIN, D . (1999) . ACTUARIAL AND CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF RISK IN SEX OFFENDERS . JOURNAL

OF

INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, 14 (3), 331-343 .

In this article, the author reviewed clinical and actuarial methods of risk assessment and discussed theimpact of fantasy on offending behavior. Grubin
posited that neither are capable of providing reliable results when used on their own due to the heterogeneity of the population and the low base rateof incidence . However, when used in conjunction
they may prove to be more reliable . The literature
review concerning actuarial assessments included a
discussion of studies conducted by Marshall (1994),
Thornton and Travers (1991), and Quinsey, Rice,& Harris (1995) . The article then went on to evaluate clinical assessments and posited that a problem
with this technique is that clinicians arrive at theirconclusions through an inductive manner, which isbased primarily upon their experiences with a few
offenders . The author then discussed the role offantasy in violent crimes and the risk attributed to

HANSON,R.K . & HARRIS, A.J .R . (2000) . WHERESHOULD WE INTERVENE? DYNAMIC PREDICTORS OFSEXUAL OFFENSE RECIDIVISM . CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND

BEHAVIOR, 27 (1), 6-35 .

This study attempted to evaluate the uses ofdynamic factors in assessing risk . The authors differentiated between stable dynamic risk factors(those expected to remain unchanged for a substantial period of time) and acute dynamic risk factors(factors that change rapidly) . The sample consistedof 208 sexual offense recidivists and 201 nonrecidivist sex offenders classified as being rapist,
boy-child molester, or girl-child molester . The study
was retrospective in nature and focused on those
offenders who recidivated while under surveillance
and those who did not . Information was collected239

through interviews with parole officers and analysis

number of prior sexual offenses were the strongestof files at two points (six months and one monthpredictors of sexual recidivism . In examining thebefore recidivism occurred) . Risk of recidivism wasrisk factors associated with violent recidivism/victim-

then gauged through use of the SIR, Psychopathy

involved recidivism, juvenile and adult antisocial

Checklist-RevisedRiskbehavior coupled with paraphilia and a low amountRisk

of contact with children showed significance .

(PCL-R),

Violence

Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and the Rapid

Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) on the data available in the files . The

PROULX, J ., TARDIF, M ., LAMOUREux, B ., LusSIER, P.

researchers also coded for sexual offense history,
sexual deviancy, treatment history, antisocial per-(2000) . HOW DOES RECIDIVISM RISK ASSESSMENT PRE-sonality disorder, and miscellaneous

DICT SURVIVAL? IN LAWS, D .R ., HUDSON, S .M., &variables .

During the interviews with supervisors the variables

WARD, T. (EDS .) . REMAKING RELAPSE PREVENTION
WITH SEX OFFENDERS: A SOURCEBOOK (PP. 466-484) .

evaluated were social influences and any problems

THOUSAND OAKS, CA; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC .

during supervision. It was found that the recidivists
had poor social support, attitudes tolerant of sexual

This chapter provided a brief overview of what con-assault, antisocial lifestyles, poor self-management

stitutes recidivism as well as the static and dynamic

strategies, and difficulties complying with supervi-

predictors of sexual recidivism . The overview paidsion . The recidivists showed similarities with theparticular attention to the meta-analysis compiled

non-recidivists concerning general mood, but the

by Hanson & Bussiere (1998) that determined thatrecidivists showed more anger and subjective distress before re-offending . The authors noted their

the best predictors were sexual deviancy as meas-

concern over the influence of retrospective recall

crimes, psychological characteristics, negative rela-bias and rater bias on the results . The authors con-tionship with mother, failure to complete treatment,

cluded that the stable dynamic risk factors showed

and the presence of depression and anxiety. Thesethe greatest potential in differentiating the recidi-

findings were similar to the findings of the Quinsey,

vists from the non-recidivists and that criminal

Khanna & Malcolm (1998) study of 483 sexual

ured by penile phallometer (PPG), history of sex

lifestyle variables were the strongest predictors ofoffenders . However, both studies only focused uponrecidivism . An interesting observation was the find-mixed groups of offenders and not specific types ofing that all of the offenders in this sample who were

sexual offenders that the chapter attempted

subjected to hormonal therapy as a requirement of
their community supervision recidivated .

sexual aggression towards women and children .

toaddress by reviewing the literature pertaining to
The overview then addressed the pros and cons of

PRENTKY, R .A ., KNIGHT,

R .A ., & LEES, A .F.S .

actuarial and acute dynamic predictors of sexual(1997) . RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH RECIDIVISM

recidivism . These predictors were then

AMONG EXTRAFAMILIAL CHILD MOLESTERS . JOURNAL

within the context of the relapse prevention model

placedOF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 65

and management in the community.

(1),141-149 .
The researchers attempted to evaluate the predictive
accuracy of ten specific risk factors for child molesters . The risk factors examined were : amount of

EVALUATIVE PARADIGMS

contact with children, degree of sexual preoccupa-

SEX OFFENDERS .

tion with children, impulsivity, juvenile and adult

PSYCHIATRY, 9 (2-3), 225-231 .

antisocial behavior, frequency of prior sexual
offenses, paraphilias, history of alcohol use, social

This article addressed the value of actuarial risk

competence, and victim gender. Researchers ana-

assessment instruments . The low base rate of sexual

GRUBIN, D . (1997) . INFERRING PREDICTORS OF RISK :INTERNATIONAL

REVIEWOF

lyzed the files of 111 child molesters released from

offending, diversity of the offender population, andthe Massachusetts Treatment Center between 1960

probabilistic confusion hinder these instruments .

and 1984 . They determined that the degree of sex-

Grubin suggested that actuarial instruments provide little information pertaining to causation/

ual preoccupation with children, paraphilias, and240

management and say nothing about the individual .
The article addressed various risk factors associatedwith sexual recidivism and referred to the metaanalysis conducted by Hanson & Bussiere (1998) inwhich the majority of the risk factors found to besignificant were static in nature . While clinicalassessments paint a more conclusive picture of theindividual, it is a technique essentially based upon"untested and unsound theoretical foundations ."Clinical risk factors are idiographic in nature, sensitive to environmental and time factors, and do notexist in isolation . The use of deductive and inductive processes was recommended when assessing an
individual's risk of recidivism (i .e., rapist typologies
developed by Knight & Prentky, 1990 or the longitudinal research conducted by Malmuth [1986,
1991] on non-offender males) .
HANSON,
SEX

Revised (PCL-R), and the uses of guided clinicalassessments in determining recidivism . The sample
consisted of 215 sex offenders who had beenreleased between the years of 1989 and 1996 . Halfof the offenders committed crimes against females
14 or older while the other half offended against
male or female children younger than fourteen .
Recidivism rates were followed for 4 .5 years during
which 38% reoffended (24% serious reoffenses and
9% for sexual reoffenses) . The authors concluded
that the VRAG, SORAG, RRASOR, and Static-99
predicted general, violent, and sexual recidivism .
MNSOST R scores and guided clinical interviews
were able to indicate general recidivism, butshowed little sensitivity in discerning between serious or sexual reoffending . Out of all of these measures, the PCL-R when used alone was sensitive to
predicting general and serious recidivism but was
unable to predict sexual recidivism .

R.K. (1998) . WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUTOFFENDERRISK

ASSESSMENT?

PSYCHOLOGY,

PUBLIC POLICY, & LAW 4 (1-2), 50-72 .

ROBERTS, C .F., DOREN, D .M .,This article described different approaches to risk
assessment (guided clinical, pure actuarial, andadjusted actuarial), summarized the literature concerning risk factors, and reviewed recent attempts
to create actuarial instruments to assess sex
offender recidivism . The article raised the issues
that while numerous studies have evaluated thestatic (stable) risk factors, the literature is practically void of studies devoted to the evaluation of
dynamic (changeable) risk factors . Hanson postulated that the research is more useful for identifying
high-risk offenders than determining release .

OF SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM RISK . CRIMINAL JUSTICE& THORNTON, D.
(2002) . DIMENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ASSESSMENTS& BEHAVIOR, 29 (5), 569-589.
The authors conducted two studies in order toexplore the different dimensions of actuarial risk
assessment. The first study explored the structure
underlying the interrelationships between actuarial
instruments on a sample of 103 male sexual offenders being evaluated for civil commitment in
Wisconsin . Examiners were told to score the entire
case record using the PCL-R, RRASOR, Static-99,
MnSOST-R, VRAG, and diagnostic informationfrom DSM-IV. It was found that : (1) the PCL-R,
MnSOST R, VRAG, and Static-99 were stronglyintercorrelated with one another as well as with the
non-RRASOR items on Static-99, (2) the PCL-R,
MnSOST R, VRAG, Static-99, and non-RRASOR
items on the Static-99 were positively associatedwith a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorderand negatively associated with a diagnosis ofpedophilia, (3) the RRASOR was only modestly
positively correlated with the MnSOST R and the
VRAG, and (4) the emergence of two dimensions ofunderlying risk inherent in the interscale intercorrelation matrix: an Antisocial/Violence component(weighed most heavily on the PCL-R, MnSOST-R,
VRAG, non-RRASOR Static-99 items, and diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder) and a

EVALUATIVE INSTRUMENTS
BARBAREE, H .E ., SETO, M .C ., LANGTON, C .M.,&

PEACOCK, E.J. (2001). EVALUATING THE PREDICTIVE
ACCURACY OF SIX RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR
ADULT

SEX

OFFENDERS .

CRIMINALJUSTICE &BEHAVIOR, 28 (4), 490-521 .

This article compared the efficacy of the Violence
Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), Sex Offender Risk
Appraisal Guide (SORAG), Rapid Risk Assessmentof Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR), Static99, Minnesota Sex Offender Screening ToolRevised (MnSOSTR), Psychopathy Checklist-

24 1

Pedophilic Deviance/Sexual Repetitiveness component (weighed most heavily on the RRASOR anddiagnosis of pedophilia) . The second study wascomprised of 393 adult males released from prison
in 1979 in England and Wales . The individual variables used to assess risk were taken from Static-99
and Risk Matrix 2000 . The variables were comprised of the following: prior conviction for sexual
offenses, any non-contact sexual offense, any malevictim of a sex offense, any conviction for a sexual
offense against a stranger, burglary involved inindex conviction, prior convictions including burglary, prior convictions including nonsexualassault, index convictions including nonsexualassault, age on release between 18-34, and marital
status listed as being single (never married) . The
measure of sexual recidivism was sexual reconviction data that was recorded for 29% of the sample .
Variables were added and three dimensions werediscovered including Sexual Deviance (any prior sex
offense + any male victims + any non-contact
offenses), General Criminality (any prior burglary +any prior nonsexual attack ; similar to the
Antisocial/Violence dimension of study 1), andDetachment (youth + stranger victim + single) . The
second study replicated the two dimensions developed in the first study and demonstrated that eachdimension makes an independent contribution to theprediction of sexual recidivism . The General
Criminality/Antisocial-Violence dimensions support
the ideas developed by Knight (1999) while thePedophilic Deviance/Sexual Repetitiveness dimensions support the work developed by Proulx (2000) .
The third dimension, Detachment, is consistent withwork conducted by Smallbone & Dadd (2000) .
While actuarial instruments measure multiple dimensions, the issue is how the interaction of these
dimensions influences risk . The authors suggested
that future research examine the development oftools that focused specifically on one dimension orare equipped to address multiple dimensions individually in one instrument as well as address theissue of risk management .

This article compared the different methods used toscreen individuals for pedophilia . The authors
asserted that by identifying those who are high risk,organizations can be proactive in addressing a
potential problem . The article cited case studies inorder for the reader to gain an understanding of thenature of pedophilia . Screening methods forpedophilia have existed for years (interviews, questionnaires, home visits, police reports, etc .), andinstitutions have even implemented various policies
aimed at managing child molestation (education/
training, elimination of individual staff-child interactions), yet these methods all have their pros andcons . The article discussed the importance of true
positives, true negatives, and false positives inestablishing an effective screening device . The Abel
Screen displayed high specificity (77%-98%), sensitivity (76%-91%), and efficiency (77 .5%-96 .9%)
when applied in a setting that assumes a 5% prevalence rate of child molestation . The volumetricphallometer (sensitivity 86 .7% ; specificity 95% ;and efficiency 94 .6%) and circumferential plethysmograph (sensitivity 47 .5% ; specificity 100% ; efficiency 97.4%) also displayed respectable sensitivity,
specificity, and efficiency but are much more intrusive, expensive, and problematic than the Abel
Screen. The Abel Screen entails a questionnaire andslides depicting children, adolescents, and adults .
The individual then rates these images based uponon how sexually arousing they are . A psycho-physiological hand monitor then records physiologicalresponses . The efficacy of the instrument was established by comparing the responses of a self-selecting
sample of "normal" participants to those ofpedophiles that had molested pubescent males andprepubescent males/females . The question as towhether an individual can fake pedophilia on the
Abel Screen is still being investigated, but preliminary data suggested that there is no difference
between those instructed to fake and those who disclose . Through cross-validation it was found that theAbel Screen has a false positive rate of 2%, which
may be reduced further through use of other screening techniques . The authors cautioned that while theAbel Screen is able to identify most pedophiles, itssensitivity is below the 90th percentile .

ABEL SCREENING TOOL

ABEL, G .G ., LAWRY, S .S ., KARLSTROM, E ., OSBORN,
C .A .,& GILLESPIE, C .F. (1994). SCREENING TESTSFOR PEDOPHILIA . CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR,

21(l),115-131 .

24 2

SEX OFFENDER NEED ASSESSMENT RATING

that the inclusion of dynamic risk factors is necessary
in order to assess treatment needs and predict whenand under what circumstances offenders are at risk .

HANSON, R.K . & HARRIS, A.J .R . (2001) . A STRUCTURES APPROACH TO EVALUATING CHANGE AMONGSEXUAL OFFENDERS . SEXUAL ABUSE : A JOURNAL OFRESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 13 (2), 105-122 .

SJOESTEDT G . & LANGSTROM, N. (2001) . ACTUARIALASSESSMENT OF SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM RISK :This study attempted to extrapolate upon the findings of Hanson & Harris (2000) by creating an
instrument to evaluate dynamic risk factors . The
Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR)
consists of items that evaluate intimacy deficits,
negative social influences, sexual self- regulation,
general self-regulation, and acute risk factors (substance abuse, negative mood, anger, and victim
access) . The scale was then used to analyze the data
present in the files of 208 sex offender recidivists
and 201 non-recidivists . The scale showed moderate reliability and was capable of discerning
between the two groups . Findings indicated thatdynamic risk factors may play an important role inrisk assessment, but it is not clear as to the extent of
their importance in predicting long-term recidivism .

99 IN SWEDEN . LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 25 (6),629-645 .
The goal of this study was to cross-validate the RRASOR and Static-99 in a different sociocultual andlegal context than the original constructions samples .
The sample consisted of all sex offenders released
from Swedish prisons from 1993-1997 (1,400 subjects in total, of which 43 % were child molesters and
45% rapists) . Sexual offenses were operationallydefined according to Swedish penal code that
accounts for crimes involving physical and noncontact offenses . Researchers acquired files from thenational Prison and Probation Administration andthen coded the data according to the risk factors ofeach instrument. The follow-up period lasted for3 .69 years and files were coded for sexual reconviction according to Swedish penal code, any violent
reconviction, and violent nonsexual reoffenses. The
authors found that both instruments displayed moderate predictive accuracy regarding short-term sexual
recidivism . However, Static-99 was found to havegreater predictive accuracy when it came to assessing
violent recidivism, but not for sexual recidivism .
Seven out of the 10 risk factors individually contributed to an increased risk of sexual reoffending .
Young age, any male victim, and index nonsexual
violence appeared not to be related to sexual recidivism . The authors suggested that their findings illustrated that these two instruments should not be usedas stand-alone devices for rule-out decisions due totheir low validity . The article included a brief discussion of other actuarial instruments including suggestions on their use . Limitations of this study included
a short follow-up period, focus only upon offenders
sentenced to prison, and a statistical analysis that
increased the risk of Type I errors .

STATIC-99
HANSON,R.K .

&THORNTON,D.

ACROSS-VALIDATION OF THE RRASOR AND THE STATIC-(2000) .

IMPROVING RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS : A
COMPARISON OF THREE ACTUARIAL SCALES . LAW AND
HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 24 (1), 119-136 .

This study compared the predictive accuracy of the
RRASOR (weighs factors related to sexual deviancy
most heavily) and the SACJ-Min (some items deal
with sexual deviancy but the focus is upon factors
dealing with nonsexual criminal history) . A goal of
the researchers was to combine the two scales inorder to evaluate whether or not predictive accuracy would be greater than either of the original
scales . This hybrid scale was dubbed Static-99
because it included only static risk factors . These
three instruments were then applied across four
data sets that had been used in previous studies .
The RRASOR and SACJ-Min were roughly equivalent when it came to predictive accuracy and the
combination of the two scales (Static-99) was moreaccurate than either original scale . Any variations
that were encountered were no more than would be
expected by chance. Static-99 also showed reasonable accuracy in the prediction of any violent recidivism among sex offenders . While these results haveshown promise for Static-99, the authors contend

VIOLENCE RISK APPRAISAL GUIDE
RICE, M .E . & HARRIS, G .T.
TION

AND

(1997). CROSS-VALIDA-

EXTENSION OF THE VIOLENCE RISKAPPRAISAL GUIDE FOR CHILD MOLESTERS AND RAPISTS .
LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 21 (2), 231-241 .

24 3

This study used the VRAG on a sample of 159 childmolesters and rapists who were not involved in theoriginal scale construction sample . The scale wasalso used to evaluate its performance on a 10-year
follow-up using the original construction sample
and the new sample . The men were serious offenders with criminal histories, poor childhood adjustment, and inadequate adult social adjustment . One
hundred and four had received psychiatric treatment in a maximum security psychiatric facility, but
few met diagnostic criteria for mental illness . All
study variables were coded from clinical files withthe exception of those pertaining to recidivism .
Sexual recidivism was operationally defined as the
subject being charged with a new sexual offense
while violent recidivism was defined as being
charged with or returning to prison for a violent
offense . Reoffense time was from the subject firstbeing at risk to January 1993 (mean =119 .3
months) . The results supported use of the VRAG in
predicting violence among high risk offenders and it
performed well upon cross-validation and follow
up when the two samples were combined . The
authors posited that from a practical standpoint thefocus should be placed upon predictions of future
violence, not necessarily a differentiation between
sexual and nonsexual violence . The results also
yielded evidence supporting an interaction between
psychopathy and sexual deviancy resulting in sexual recidivism . Those who offend against womenand children are at a higher risk of violent recidivism while child molesters are at a higher risk forsexual recidivism. Limitations of the study include
the fact that the two samples were drawn from one
Canadian maximum-security psychiatric facility(yet previous studies have illustrated that this population was similar to other prison populations) .
Future research possibilities focus on the development of a scale similar to the VRAG but pertaining
solely to sex offenders .

The authors attempted to develop a combined scale(11 items from the MCMI-II and 16 items from the
MMPI-2) that would differentiate same-sex
ephebophile clerics from priests with nonsexual
psychiatric disorders . The sample consisted of 165
adult male Catholic priests in treatment who hadparticipated in two prior studies . The results
showed that when used individually both scales arecapable of differentiating these groups . However, acombination of the two scales showed greater accuracy and internal consistency on the MCMI-II .
Regardless of the accuracy of this combined scale, it
was still unable to identify many of theephebophiles in this sample . The authors urge thata multidimensional approach be utilized whenassessing child molesters .
GONSIOREK, J.C . (1999) . FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGICALEVALUATIONS IN CLERGY ABUSE. I N T. G. PLANTE (ED .) .
BLESS ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED : PERSPECTIVESON SEXUAL ABUSE COMMITTED BY ROMAN CATHOLICPRIESTS . (pp. 27-57) . WESTPORT, CT: PRAEGER
PUBLISHERS .

This chapter provided a discussion of two evaluative methods used to assess clergy who abuse children . In discussing the population of professional
perpetrators, the author described the priests as fitting into one of the following typologies : naive,
normal and/or mildly neurotic, severely neurotic
and/or socially isolated, impulsive character disorders, sociopathic or narcissistic character disorders,
psychotics, classic sex offenders (true pedophiles),medically disabled, and masochistic/self defeating .
These typologies were created for health professionals and thus may differ when applied to clerics . The
first assessment discussed evaluates the potential forrehabilitation . The main purpose of this evaluation
was to ascertain the facts of what led to the offending behavior and what can be done to rectify the situation . Different types of evidence may be evaluatedin order to formulate a hypothesis . Once thehypothesis as to why the cleric offends is developed,
rehabilitation potential and goals are expanded
upon . A religious superior then evaluates this outline and the cleric must decide whether or not they
are willing to undergo the treatment process . Once
treatment is in place, steps must be taken in orderto ensure compliance . It is also important that themental health professionals and religious superiors

EVALUATING CLERIC OFFENDERSCIMBOLIC, P., WISE, R .A ., ROSSETTI, S ., & SAFER, M .

(1999) . DEVELOPMENT OF A COMBINED OBJECTIVEEPHEBOPHILE SCALE .
SEXUALADDICTION d7"
COMPULSIVITY, 6 (3), 253-266 .

24 4

Researchers used the MCMI-II to determine if it wascapable of differentiating same-sex priest
ephebophiles (N=101) from priests with psychiatricillnesses of a nonsexual nature (N=99) . Throughanalyses of variance, it was determined that the
MCMI-II was not able to differentiate between thegroups . Item-level analyses were then conducted inorder to determine which items would discriminate
the offenders from the non-offenders in the hopes of
constructing a priest ephebophile scale . The results
suggested that the MCMI-II cannot distinguishbetween sexually offending clerics and those withmental illnesses . Since the sample consisted of only
Catholic priests, the authors suggested that the
MCMI-II may be effective when used on a sample ofnon-priest sex offenders .

keep in mind that treatment and punishment are
two separate notions. A discussion of professional
sexual misconduct recidivism is included and the rateestimate varies . The second type of evaluation discussed deals with damages allotted in civil cases . The
assessment for damages is standard in most civil trials. The mental health professional should obtain acomplete personal and family history from the victim. Inquiry should be made into the victim's level offunctioning as well as utilization of validated psychological tests . A discussion of the standard of care anddelayed discovery controversies are also included .
IRONS, R. & LAASER, M . (1994) . THE ABDUCTION OF
FIDELITY:SEXUALEXPLOITATION

BY

EXPERIENCE WITH INPATIENT ASSESSMENT.

CLERGY-SEXUALADDICTION & COMPULSIVITY, 1 (2), 119-129 .
WASYLIW, O .E ., BENN,

This article presented the results of the five-day longassessments of 25 male clerics who had been referred
for sexual misconduct, primarily with adults .
Assessments included administration of the MMPI,MCMI, Thematic Apperception Test, Rorschach,
WAIS-R, and sentence completion tasks . Eachpatient's history was recorded (although the authors
believe that much of it was incomplete, especially inregard to childhood abuse or family dysfunction) andclinical diagnoses were based on DSM-III-R criteria .
The results of the study were so diverse that a classification system or treatment model could not be created. However, the authors found various commonalities concerning the background of these clerics .
They came from rigid backgrounds and lacked
insight into their problems and professional boundaries . It was also found that the clerics had no training in the area of transference/countertransference ortraining concerning sexual abuse . Most of the individuals in the sample met the diagnosis for personality disorders with features of antisocial/psychopathic
traits or paranoid, sadistic, or schizoid features . The
results illustrated that narcissistic and dependant
traits cluster together and were modeled in an
exploitive way. The authors suggested the use of multidisciplinary evaluations . If these evaluations are
conducted early enough in the process, the prognosisof rehabilitation improves .

A.E, GROSSMAN,

L .S .,&HAYWOOD, T.W (1998) . DETECTION OF MINIMIZATION
OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY ON THE RORSCHACH IN CLERICAND

NON-CLERIC

ALLEGED

SEX

OFFENDERS .

ASSESSMENT, 5 (4), 389-397.

The goal of this study was to examine the ability of
the Rorschach in assessing defensiveness . The
hypothesis was based on prior research that illustrated that minimization on the Rorschach would bereflected by higher P, D, A, Lambda, PER, and lower
R, Blends, and ZF. The sample consisted of 33 clergymen and 27 non-cleric sex offenders who had beenreferred for forensic evaluations . Eighty percent of
the participants in the sample were facing allegationsof child sexual abuse . The clerics were significantly
older and more educated than the non-clerics . All
participants were administered the MMPI or MMPIII and the Rorschach . The Rorschach failed to detect
minimization or was not sensitive to the same type of
response bias as the MMPI validity scales . There wasno difference in scores between those who admitted
to their crime and those who denied their involvement. Interestingly, the authors reported that two
participants exaggerated psychopathology. The
authors asserted that minimization and education
have been shown to be correlated on certain MMPI
validity scales, but this was controlled for in the present study. The authors recommended that other wellestablished psychometric instruments that are used in
the detection of minimization be utilized as opposed
to reliance upon Rorschach scores .

MUSSER, P., CIMBOLIC, P., & ROSSETTI, S . (1995) .
EPHEBOPHILIA AND THE MCMI-II . SEXUAL ADDICTION& COMPULSIVITY, 2 (3), 214-222 .

245