Misdiagnoses of Pedohebephilia Using Victim Count: A Reply to Wollert and Cramer (2011)
- 239 Downloads
Wollert and Cramer (2011) recently reanalyzed the data from my study of victim count as a diagnostic indicator of pedohebephilia (Blanchard, 2010c). Their focus was the proposed guideline of diagnosing a patient as pedohebephilic if that patient has sexually molested three or more different children age 14 or younger, on separate occasions spanning at least 6 months. Wollert and Cramer contended that such a guideline would mean that 81–85% of patients so diagnosed would be falsely diagnosed. I am writing to explain the mistakes that led them to this false conclusion and to demonstrate that a more realistic estimate of this rate is around 28–29%. I have directed this letter to the Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) rather than to Behavioral Sciences and the Law (BSL) because two of the three papers relevant to this matter were published in ASB, and because BSL does not print letters to the editor.
Background of the Debate
In the December 2010 issue of this journal, First (2010) and I...
KeywordsSexual Attraction Child Pornography Pedophilia Child Victim Penile Response
- Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey R., & Cantor, J. M. (2010). Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3.
- Freund, K. (1967). Diagnosing homo- or heterosexuality and erotic age-preference by means of a psychophysiological test. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5, 209–228.Google Scholar
- Freund, K., Seeley, H. R., Marshall, W. E., & Glinfort, E. K. (1972). Sexual offenders needing special assessment and/or therapy. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 14, 3–23.Google Scholar
- Wollert, R., & Cramer, E. (2011). Sampling extreme groups invalidates research on the paraphilias: Implications for DSM-5 and sex offender risk assessments. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 554–565.Google Scholar