Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 401–404 | Cite as

Dimensional Measurement of Sexual Deviance

Original Paper


There are at least three approaches by which psychopathology can be described in terms of dimensions. Each approach involves counting the number and severity of symptoms, but these scores have distinct meanings based on whether the latent construct is considered to be categorical or dimensional. Given a categorical construct, dimensions can index either diagnostic certainty or symptom severity. For inherently dimensional constructs, the severity of the symptoms is essentially isomorphic with the underlying latent dimension. The optimal number of dimensions for describing paraphilias is not known, but would likely include features related to problems in sexual self-regulation, the diversity of paraphilic interests, and the overall intensity of sexual drive and expression. Complex measures of these (and related) dimensions currently exist, but simplified criteria are needed for routine communication among diverse mental health professionals. Establishing these criteria would requires professional consensus on the nature of the latent dimensions, as well as reliable assessment of the core constructs using non-arbitrary scales of measurement.


Assessment Paraphilias Dimensional measurement DSM-V 


  1. Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Mittelman, M., & Rouleau, J. (1988). Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16, 153–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akobeng, A. K. (2006). Understanding diagnostic tests 2: Likelihood ratios, pre- and post-test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. Acta Paediatrica, 96, 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 27–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H. (2009). A proposal for a dimensional classification system based on the shared features of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders: Implications for assessment and treatment. Psychological Assessment, 21, 256–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnes, P. (1989). Contrary to love: Helping the sexual addict. Minneapolis, MN: CompCare Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, E., Miner, M., Ohlerking, F., & Raymond, N. (2001). Compulsive Sexual Behavior Inventory: A preliminary study of reliability and validity. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 27, 325–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Guay, J. P., Ruscio, J., Knight, R. A., & Hare, R. D. (2007). A taxometric analysis of the latent structure of psychopathy: Evidence for dimensionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 701–716.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Heil, P., & English, K. (2009). Sex offender polygraph testing in the United States: Trends and controversies. In D. T. Wilcox (Ed.), The use of the polygraph in assessing, treating and supervising sex offenders: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 181–216). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Helzer, J. E., Kraemer, H. C., Krueger, R. F., Wittchen, H.-U., Sirovatka, P. J., & Regier, D. A. (Eds.). (2008). Dimensional approaches in diagnostic classification: Refining the research agenda for DSM-V. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  10. Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 586–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lalumière, M. L., & Harris, G. T. (2008, October). What accounts for ‘penile indifference’ among sex offenders? Paper presented at the meeting of the Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  12. Langevin, R., & Paitich, D. (2002). The Clarke Sex History Questionnaire for Males-Revised (SHQ-R) technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  13. Långström, N., & Hanson, R. K. (2006). High rates of sexual behavior in the general population: Correlates and predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 37–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Maser, J. D., Norman, S. B., Zisook, S., Everall, I. P., Stein, M. B., Schettler, P. J., et al. (2009). Psychiatric nosology is ready for a paradigm shift in DSM-V. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16, 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Michell, J. (1990). An introduction to the logic of psychological measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Raymond, N. C., Coleman, E., Ohlerking, F., Christenson, G. A., & Miner, M. (1999). Psychiatric comorbidity in pedophilic sex offenders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 786–788.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2001). A brief screening scale to identify pedophilic interests among child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Slade, T., Grove, R., & Teesson, M. (2009). A taxometric study of alcohol abuse and dependence in a general population sample: Evidence of dimensional latent structure and implications for DSM-V. Addiction, 104, 742–751.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumière, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 559–573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilson, G. (1978). The secrets of sexual fantasy. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychiatric Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Corrections ResearchPublic Safety CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations