Advertisement

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

  • Nicholas LongpréEmail author
  • Raymond A. Knight
  • Jean-Pierre Guay
  • Massil Benbouriche
  • Glenn D. Walters
Letter to the Editor

In 2018, we examined the latent structure of sexual sadism and published our results in Archives of Sexual Behavior. Because sadism is treated as a disorder that one does or does not have, sadists have been conceptualized as fundamentally different from non-sadists, and research is directed at a very specific subgroup of offenders (Longpré, Guay, Knight, & Benbouriche, 2018). Sadism has, however, been plagued with an absence of pathognomonic symptoms, and many symptoms supposedly identifying sadism have been found among non-sadistic offenders and non-delinquents (for more details, see Longpré et al., 2018). Based on the results obtained in Longpré et al., but also on the convergence of results across studies and samples, we concluded that sexual sadism is distributed as a dimension. These results are not only in stark contrast to the categorical orientation that has been and continues to be supported in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(e.g., American...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gonçalves, L. C., Rossegger, A., & Gerth, J. (2018). Sexual sadism among sex offenders in Switzerland. Sexual Abuse.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218800473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Haslam, N., & Cleland, C. (2002). Taxometric analysis of fuzzy categories: A Monte Carlo study. Psychological Assessment, 90(2), 401–404.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2002.90.2.401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Knight, R. A., Sims-Knight, J., & Guay, J. P. (2013). Is a separate diagnostic category defensible for paraphilic coercion? Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 90–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lahey, B. B., & Waldman, I. D. (2003). A developmental propensity model of the origins of conduct problems during childhood and adolescence. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 76–117). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Longpré, N., Guay, J. P., & Knight, R. A. (2019a). MTC Sadism Scale: Toward dimensional assessment of severe sexual sadism. Assessment, 26(1), 70–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117737377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Longpré, N., Guay, J. P., Knight, R. A., & Benbouriche, M. (2018). Sadistic offender or sexual sadism? Taxometric evidence for a dimensional structure of sexual sadism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(2), 403–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1068-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Longpré, N., Knight, R. A., & Guay, J. P. (2019b). Latent structure and covariates of the Agonistic Continuum among community sample and college students. Oral presentation at the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse Conference, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Longpré, N., Sims-Knight, J. E., Neumann, C., Guay, J. P., & Knight, R. A. (2019c). Is paraphilic coercion a different construct from sadism or simply the lower end of an Agonistic Continuum? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  11. McGrath, R. E. (2008). Inferential errors in taxometric analyses of ordered three-class constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 11–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701356755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McGrath, R. E., & Walters, G. D. (2012). Taxometric analysis as a general strategy for distinguishing categorical from dimensional latent structure. Psychological Methods, 17, 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McPhail, I. V. (2019a). Of dimensions, dichotomies, and trichotomies: Comments on the taxometric ghost that haunts Longpré, Guay, Knight, and Benbouriche (2018) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01530-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. McPhail, I. V. (2019b). Conceptual and empirical issues in pedohebephilic interest. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.Google Scholar
  15. McPhail, I. V., Olver, M. E., Brouillette-Alarie, S., & Looman, J. (2018). Taxometric analysis of the latent structure of pedophilic interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(8), 2223–2240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1225-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 108–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meehl, P. E. (1995). Boot straps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50(4), 266–275.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.50.4.266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Meehl, P. E. (2004). What’s in a taxon? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 39–43.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mokros, A., Schilling, F., Weiss, K., Nitschke, J., & Eher, R. (2014). Sadism in sexual offenders: Evidence for dimensionality. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 138–147.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Reale, K. S. (2017). An examination of sadism in sexual homicide: Are investigative awareness and the severity of sadistic behaviour distinctive features? Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  22. Reale, K. S., Beauregard, E., & Martineau, M. (2017). Sadism in sexual homicide offenders: Identifying distinct groups. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7(2), 120–133.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-11-2016-0042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ruscio, J. (2007). The clinician as subject: Practitioners are prone to the same judgment errors as everyone else. In S. O. Lilienfeld & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), The great ideas of clinical science: 17 principles that every mental health professional should understand (pp. 29–47). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  24. Ruscio, J., Haslam, N., & Ruscio, A. M. (2006). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Ruscio, J., & Marcus, D. K. (2007). Detecting small taxa using simulated comparison data: A reanalysis of Beach, Amir, and Bau’s (2005) data. Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 241–246.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruscio, J., & Ruscio, A. M. (2004). A nontechnical introduction to the taxometric method. Understanding Statistics, 3, 151–194.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0303_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A. M., & Meron, M. (2007). Applying the bootstrap to taxometric analysis: Generating empirical sampling distributions to help interpret results. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(2), 349–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701360795.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruscio, J., Walters, G. D., Markus, D. K., & Kaczetow, W. (2010). Comparing the relative fit of categorical and dimensional latent variable models using consistency tests. Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 5–21.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Stefanska, E. B., Nitschke, J., Carter, A. J., & Mokros, A. (2019). Sadism among sexual homicide offenders: Validation of the Sexual Sadism Scale. Psychological Assessment, 31(1), 132–137.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000653.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Walters, G. D., McGrath, R. E., & Knight, R. A. (2010). Taxometrics, polytomous constructs, and the comparison curve fit index: A Monte Carlo analysis. Psychological Assessment, 22, 149–156.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017819.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Walters, G. D., & Ruscio, J. (2009). Using comparison data to differentiate categorical and dimensional data by examining factor score distributions: Resolving the mode problem. Psychological Assessment, 21(4), 578–594.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Walters, G. D., & Ruscio, J. (2010). Where do we draw the line? Assigning cases to subsamples for MAMBAC, MAXCOV, and MAXEIG taxometric analyses. Assessment, 17(3), 321–333.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109356539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Walton, K. E., Ormel, J., & Krueger, R. F. (2011). The dimensional nature of externalizing behaviors in adolescence: Evidence from a direct comparison of categorical, dimensional, and hybrid models. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(4), 553–561.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9478-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of RoehamptonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  3. 3.École de CriminologyUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Département de PsychologieUniversité de LilleLilleFrance
  5. 5.Department of Criminal JusticeKutztown UniversityKutztownUSA

Personalised recommendations