Circumferential Change Scores in Phallometric Assessment: Normative Data



Phallometric testing is a procedure that has enjoyed considerable popularity as an objective component in the assessment of sexual offenders. The value of this procedure may be most notably compromised in the realm of interpretation, and problems in interpretation are particularly acute for those participants where full arousal is not obtained during testing. The calculation of Percent Full Erection (PFE) scores has of necessity involved a speculative component in such cases. Eliminating this speculation through empirical investigation was the purpose of the current research. Circumferential change scores (from flaccidity to full erection); were obtained for 724 respondents at nine North American correctional facilities, allowing for the calculation of descriptive statistics and a determination of the distribution characteristics of these scores. The results provide an empirical basis for calculating PFE scores and interpreting phallometric data in those cases where full arousal is not obtained, and specific confidence levels associated with interpretation are offered. It is suggested that only through a more rigorous application of the principles of science will the procedure of phallometric assessment fulfill its true potential.

penile plethysmograph phallometry sexual arousal interpretation sexual offender assessment phallometric testing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abel, G. G., & Blanchard, E. B. (1976). The measurement and generation of sexual arousal in male sexual deviates. Progressive Behavior Modification, 2, 99–136.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, H. E., Motsinger, P., McAnulty, R. D., & Moore, A.L. (1992). Voluntary control of penile tumescence among homosexual and heterosexual subjects. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 17–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) (2001). Practice standards and guidelines for Members of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Beaverton, OR: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J. V., Hunter, J. A., Goodwin, D., Kaplan, M. S., & Martinez, D. (1992a). Test-retest reliability of videotaped phallometric stimuli with adolescent sexual offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 5, 45–51.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, J. V., Stein, R. M., Kaplan, M. S., & Cunningham-Rathner, J. (1992b). Erection response characteristics of adolescent sex offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 5, 81–86.Google Scholar
  6. Earls, C. M. (1983). Some issues in the assessment of sexual deviance. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 6, 431–441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Earls, C. M., Quinsey, V. L., & Castonguay, L. G. (1987). A comparison of three methods of scoring penile circumference changes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 493–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Freund, K. (1991). Reflections on the development of the phallometric method of assessing sexual preferences. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 221–228.Google Scholar
  9. Freund, K., Scher, H., Rancansky, I., Campbell, K., & Heasman, G. (1986). Males disposed to commit rape. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 23–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Furr, K. D. (1991). Penis size and magnitude of erectile change as spurious factors in estimating sexual arousal. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 265–279.Google Scholar
  11. Government of Canada. (1993). Criminal code of Canada. Agincourt, ON: Carswell.Google Scholar
  12. Gray, S. R. (1995). A comparison of verbal satiation and minimal arousal conditioning to reduce deviant arousal in the laboratory. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 143–153.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, G. C. (1990). Validity of pedophilic sexual arousal in a sexual offender population: A reply to Quinsey and Laws. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 889–891.Google Scholar
  14. Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Haywood, T. W., Grossman, L. S., & Cavanaugh, J. L. (1990). Subjective versus objective measurements of deviant sexual arousal in clinical evaluations of alleged child molesters. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 269–275.Google Scholar
  16. Howes, R. J. (1995). A survey of plethysmographic assessment in North America. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 9–24.Google Scholar
  17. Howes, R. J. (1998). Plethysmographic assessment of nonsexual offenders: A comparison with rapists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 183–194.Google Scholar
  18. Hunter, J. A., & Goodwin, D. W. (1992). The clinical utility of satiation therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Variations and efficacy. Annals of Sex Research, 5, 71–80.Google Scholar
  19. Kaemingk, K. L., Koselka, M., Becker, J., & Kaplan, M. S. (1995). Age and adolescent sexual offender arousal. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 249–257.Google Scholar
  20. Lalumiere, M. L., & Harris, G. T. (1998). Common questions regarding the use of phallometric testing with sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 227–237.Google Scholar
  21. Langevin, R. (1989). Sexual preference testing. Toronto: Juniper Press.Google Scholar
  22. Laws, D. R. (1993). The President's column: Certification of plethysmographic operators. ATSA Newsletter, 5, 2–4.Google Scholar
  23. Laws, D. R., & Osborne, C. A. (1983). How to build and operate a behavioral laboratory to evaluate and treat sexual deviance. In J. G. Greer, & I. R. Stuart (Eds.), The sexual aggressor: Current perspectives on treatment, New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  24. Looman, J., Abracen, J., Maillet, G., & DiFazio, R. (1998). Phallometric nonresponding in sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 325–336.Google Scholar
  25. Malcolm, P. B., Andrews, D. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Discrimination and predictive validity of phallometrically measured age and gender preferences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 486–501.Google Scholar
  26. Maletzky, B. M. (1991). Treating the sexual offender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. McAnulty, R. D., & Adams, H. E. (1992). Validity and ethics of penile circumference measures of sexual arousal: A reply to McConaghy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 177–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McGrath, R. J. (1991). Sex-offender risk assessment and disposition planning: A review of empirical and clinical findings. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 328–350.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, W. D., & Barbaree, H. E. (1994). Assessments of sex offenders by measures of erectile response: Psychometric properties and decision making. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.Google Scholar
  30. Murphy, W., DiLillo, D., Haynes, M., & Steere, E. (2001). An exploration of factors related to deviant sexual arousal among juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 91–103.Google Scholar
  31. Parks Medical Electronics, Inc. (1983). Operating manual: Model 240 strain gauge plethysmograph. Beaverton, OR: Author.Google Scholar
  32. Pope, H., Butcher, J., & Seelen, J. (1993). The MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A in court. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  33. Proulx, J. (1989). Sexual preference assessment of sexual aggressors. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 6, 431–441.Google Scholar
  34. Proulx, J., Pellerin, B., Paradis, Y., McKibben, A., Aubut, J., & Ouimet, M. (1997). Static and dynamic predictors of recidivism in sexual aggressors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9, 7–27.Google Scholar
  35. Quinsey, V. L., Chaplin, T. C., & Carrigan, W. F. (1979). Sexual preferences among incestuous and nonincestuous child molesters. Behavior Therapy, 10, 562–565.Google Scholar
  36. Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Predicting sexual offences. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Rea, J. A., DeBriere, T., Butler, K., & Saunders, K. J. (1998) An analysis of four sexual offenders' arousal in the natural environment through the use of a portable penile plethysmograph. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 239–255.Google Scholar
  38. Rosen, R. C., & Keefe, F. J. (1978). The measurement of human penile tumescence. Psychophysiology, 15, 366–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Shouten, P. G. W., & Simon, W. T. (1992). Validity of phallometric measures: Comments on the Quinsey, Laws, and Hall debate. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 812–814.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon, W. T., & Shouten, P. G. W. (1991). Plethysmography in the assessment and treatment of sexual deviance: An overview. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20, 75–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wheeler, D., & Rubin, H. B. (1987). A comparison of volumetric and circumferential measures of penile erection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 289–299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, S. M. (1995). Sex offender assessment guidelines. In T. Leis, L. Motiuk, & J. Oglof (Eds.), Forensic psychology: Policy and practice in corrections. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar
  43. Wilson, K., Abel, G., Coyne, B., & Rouleau, J. (1992). Sex guilt and paraphilic behavior. Annals of Sex Research, 5, 161–170.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentStony Mountain InstitutionWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations