Content uploaded by R. Karl Hanson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by R. Karl Hanson
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Dimensional Measurement of Sexual Deviance
R. Karl Hanson
ÓAmerican Psychiatric Association 2009
Abstract There are at least three approaches by which psy-
chopathology can be described in terms of dimensions. Each
approach involves counting the number and severity of symp-
toms, 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 prob-
lems in sexual self-regulation, the diversity of paraphilic inter-
ests, 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 communi-
cation among diverse mental health professionals. Estab-
lishing 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.
Keywords Assessment Paraphilias Dimensional
measurement DSM-V
Introduction
Psychopathology can be conceptualized both in terms of cat-
egories and in terms of dimensions. Most existing nosono-
mies are written in terms of categories, despite the oft-cited
difficulties with categorical descriptions of human behavior
(Brown & Barlow, 2009; Maser et al., 2009;Slade,Grove,&
Teesson, 2009). Categories are justified to the extent that (1)
symptoms are organized in distinct and predictable patterns,
(2) the antecedents and course of the disorder are distinctive
and predictable, (3) the symptom pattern is linked to a theo-
retically coherent account of their development, expression,
and course, and (4) changes in the severity of the disorder can
be observed by deliberate manipulation of the causal factors
articulated in the theoretical model. The final criterion is nec-
essary to distinguish syndromes or symptom patterns that are
purely descriptive from identifiable disorders that are respon-
sible for causing the symptoms.
None of the existing paraphilic disorders fully meet the
criteria for being categorically distinct disorders. Pedophilia
is perhaps the leading contender, given its distinctive expres-
sion and predictable course (e.g., early onset, high stability;
Seto, 2008). There is littleconsensus, however, concerning the
cause of pedophilia.As well, it is common for individualsdem-
onstrating sexual interest in children to have other paraphilic
interests (Abel, Becker, Cunningham-Rathner, Mittelman, &
Rouleau, 1988; Raymond, Coleman, Ohlerking, Christenson,
&Miner,1999). Phallometric profiles of men whose strongest
responseinvolve children typically showsubstantial responses
to other age and gendercategories (Lalumie
`re & Harris, 2008).
In contrast, the profiles of typical heterosexual or homosexual
males are highlydifferentiated, withstrong responses to adults
of their preferred gender and littleresponse to other categories
(Suschinsky, Lalumie
`re, & Chivers, 2009).
Dimensionality of Psychopathology
In order to consider dimensions of psychiatric symptoms, it is
necessary to first consider what these dimensions represent. I
R. K. Hanson (&)
Corrections Research, Public Safety Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue
West, Ottawa, ON K1A 0P8, Canada
e-mail: karl.hanson@ps.gc.ca
123
Arch Sex Behav
DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9575-6
will discuss three possible meanings: (1) diagnostic confidence,
(2) symptom strength, and (3) latent dimensions.
Diagnostic Confidence
Even if a disorder is a true type or category, it is rare to have
pathognomonic signs that, by themselves, determine the pres-
ence or absence of thedisorder. Instead, clinicians are required
to infer the disorder from indicators, which are usually (but not
necessarily) symptoms. One way of dimensionalizing diag-
nosis is to report the probability that the disorder is present
given a particular set of indicators. For example, based on sex-
ual convictions involving three unrelated boys, self-reported
exclusive sexual interest in adult females, and never lived with
a lover by the age of 40, an evaluator may say that the patient
has a 85% chance of having pedophilia (with confidence
intervals of 76 to 92%). The percentages, of course, are ficti-
tious, but could be empirically established given a‘‘gold stan-
dard’’ against which to evaluate the discriminative properties
of the diagnostic indicators. An example of such an actuarial
approach to diagnosis is the Screening Scale for Pedophilic
Interest developed by Seto and Lalumie
`re (2001). In general,
the more symptoms observed, the greater likelihood of the dis-
order being present. Note, however, that the estimated prob-
ability of the disorder being present is influenced by the base
rate of the disorder in the sample as well as by the discrimi-
native properties of the indicators (i.e., Bayesian posterior
probabilities; Akobeng, 2006).
Symptom Strength
Another sense in which diagnoses can be dimensionalized is in
terms of symptom strength. A group of patients may all have
the same disorder, but some may have it worse than others. As
well, the severity of symptom expression may change over
time (e.g., in response to treatment). For a general discussion
of dimensional measurement in DSM-V, see Helzer et al.
(2008). This conceptualization assumes two decisions: Does
the patient have the disorder? And, if so, at what level of
severity? The criteria used would be different for the two deci-
sions, and evaluators would also have to consider the extent to
which the severity of the symptoms was related to specific
disorders. For example, the severity of impairment from intru-
sive deviant sexual thoughts could berelated to the severity of
the paraphilia as well as to the severity ofa co-morbid anxiety
disorder.
Latent Dimensions
There is a third sense of dimensionality that also should be
considered. It is plausible that certain disorders are best
described as the extreme expressions of inherently continu-
ous distributions. For these disorders, there are no absolute
criteria to determine pathology from normal; the dividing
line is determined by professional and community consensus
concerning the extent to which the behavioral patterns are
sufficiently extreme to be problematic. Although dimen-
sional definitions are vulnerable to criticisms of being arbi-
trary, explicit criteria usually allow evaluators to reliably
classify most cases as problematic or non-problematic, with
relatively few contentious cases. An example of a well-stud-
ied dimensional construct would be an antisocial lifestyle,
which at the extreme end is described as psychopathy (Guay,
Ruscio, Knight, & Hare, 2007).
It would be sensible to diagnosis dimensional constructs
using both the number of different symptoms, as well as their
intensity and duration. Note that, in practical terms, there is
substantial overlap for all three conceptualization. In all three
approaches, clinicians count the number of symptoms (indi-
cators) and judge their intensity. In the first version, high num-
bers of intense symptoms are considered to increase diagnos-
tic certainty; in the second version, the symptoms are consid-
ered to measure the severity of the disorder, provided, of
course, that the patient first meets a preliminary set of criteria
establishing that the disorder is present; in the third concep-
tualization, the symptoms are largely isomorphic with the dis-
order itself: patients with more extreme symptoms are con-
sidered to be worse on the latent dimensional construct than
patients with fewer symptoms.
Dimensions of Sexual Deviance
Given the above considerations, I will propose three dimen-
sions potentially relevant for the diagnosis of paraphilias: (1)
sexual self-regulation, (2) atypical sexual interests, and (3)
overall intensity of sexuality.
Sexual Self-Regulation
Sexual self-regulation could be defined as the ability to man-
age sexual thoughts, feelings, and behavior in a manner that is
consistent with self-interest and that protects the rights of
others (minimum criteria for being ‘‘prosocial’’). The lowest
levels of sexual self-regulation will involve indiscriminate,
disorganized sexual behavior. The next lowest level would
involve ineffective attempts to regulate sexual behavior. At
this stage, thepatient would self-identify problems with sexual
behavior, which may not necessarily be seen for the most
highly disorganized cases. The positive end of the continuum
would be expressed by individuals who feel satisfied with their
sexual behavior, their behavior respects the rights of others,
and their strategies for self-control are sufficiently well devel-
oped to be perceived as effortless (no struggles). A number of
sexual self-regulation scales are available (e.g., Carnes, 1989;
Coleman, Miner, Ohlerking,& Raymond, 2001;Kalichman&
Arch Sex Behav
123
Rompa, 1995), which include items related to self-identified
struggles with sexual impulses, sexual activities in response to
negative affect, and a history of high risksexual behavior (e.g.,
unprotected sex with prostitutes).
Atypical Sexual Interests
The secon dd imension is the ext ent of atypical sexua l interests.
Defining such interests has always been a sensitive topic, but
there is a continuum with some individual much more likely to
be interested in, and to engage in, diverse sexual activities than
others. Although most heterosexual and homosexual men are
exclusive in their sexual interests, it is quite common for those
who engage in one type of paraphilic behavior to report other
paraphilic behaviors (e.g., Abel et al., 1988; Heil & English,
2009). Consequently, it would be possible to create a dimen-
sion ranging for multiple paraphilias to exclusive interest in
(‘‘normal’’) sexual behavior with consenting adults. Existing
measures that assess the diversity of sexual interests include
the Clarke Sex History Questionnaire (Langevin & Paitich,
2002) and the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire (Wilson,
1978).
Intensity of Sexuality
Another simple dimension would be to rate the degree of
sexual interest and activity from ‘‘very low’’ to ‘‘very high.’’
Although itwould be possible to count orgasms (a
`la Kinsey),
a better approach would be to evaluate the degree to which
sexuality consumes resources that otherwise could be devoted
to other, more productive activities (love, work, family). This
definitionwould also be consistent withan evolutionary model
in which the successful use of finite resourcesis judged accord-
ing to reproductive fitness.
Although complex measures of these dimensions currently
exist, simplified criteriaare needed for routine communication
among diverse mental health professionals. The professional
community would need to agree as to the meaningful grada-
tions of the latent dimensions—a consensus which has yet to
be achieved. Inthe future, however, it may be possible to com-
municate using phrases such as the patient has ‘‘moderate
problems with sexual self-regulation’’ or‘‘high levels of para-
philic sexual interests.’’
Conclusion
I believe that describing deviant sexual behavior according
to the dimensions proposed would provide a more useful
and truer description of patients’ problems than does the
current categorical approach involving discrete paraphilias.
Although the dimensions proposed are plausible, consider-
able more research is needed to establish their validity and
clinical utility.
Given the overlap between sexual self-regulation and the
intensity of sexual activity (La
˚ngstro
¨m&Hanson,2006), for
example, it may also be possible to combine these dimen-
sions, leaving two relevant dimensions: paraphilic interests
and sexual self-regulation. Alternately, there may be only one
dimension related to sexuality—the degree of paraphilic inter-
ests. Issues concerning sexual self-regulation may be more
accurately described as part of a core dimension of low self-
control/general self-regulation.
Identifying the most appropriate dimensional structure
requires professional consensus on the nature of the latent
dimensions, as well as reliable assessment of the core con-
structs using non-arbitrary scales of measurement (Blanton &
Jaccard, 2006;Michell,1990). Support for distinct dimensions
(or categories) would be provided by theoretical models artic-
ulating their origins in biology and experience. As well, meta-
analyses of large, empirical studies would be needed to exam-
ine the stability of the proposed latent clustersand factors. This
work is never definitive. Nevertheless, it is work worth doing.
Acknowledgments The author is an advisor to the Paraphilias sub-
workgroup of the DSM-V Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work-
group (Chair, Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D.). This article is a revised version
of a commentary submitted on July 17, 2009 to the Workgroup. I would
like to thank Jobina Li for help with the references. The views expressed
are those of the authorand not necessarily those of PublicSafety Canada.
Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders V Workgroup Reports (Copyright 2009), American
Psychiatric Association.
References
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.
Akobeng, A. K. (2006). Understanding diagnostic tests 2: Likelihood
ratios,pre-andpost-testprobabilitiesand theiruse inclinicalpractice.
Acta Paediatrica, 96, 487–491.
Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology.
American Psychologist, 61, 27–41.
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 treat-
ment. Psychological Assessment, 21, 256–271.
Carnes, P. (1989). Contrary to love: Helping the sexual addict. Min-
neapolis, MN: CompCare Publishers.
Coleman, E., Miner, M., Ohlerking, F., & Raymond, N. (2001). Com-
pulsive Sexual Behavior Inventory: A preliminary study of reliabil-
ity and validity. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 27, 325–332.
Guay, J. P., Ruscio, J., Knight, R. A., & Hare, R. D. (2007). A taxometric
analysis of the latent structure of psychopathy:Evidence for dimen-
sionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 701–716.
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
Arch Sex Behav
123
offenders: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 181–216). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
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.
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.
Lalumie
`re, 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 Associ-
ation for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Atlanta, GA.
Langevin,R., & Paitich, D. (2002). The ClarkeSex History Questionnaire
for Males-Revised (SHQ-R) technical manual. Toronto: Multi-
Health Systems.
La
˚ngstro
¨m, N., & Hanson, R. K. (2006). High rates of sexual behavior in
the general population: Correlates and predictors. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 35, 37–52.
Maser, J. D., Norman, S. B., Zisook, S., Everall, I. P., Stein, M. B.,
Schettler, P. J.,et al. (2009). Psychiatric nosology is readyfor a para-
digm shift in DSM-V. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,
16, 24–40.
Michell, J. (1990). An introduction to the logic of psychological mea-
surement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children:
Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumie
`re, 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.
Slade, T.,Grove, R., & Teesson, M.(2009). A taxometricstudy of alcohol
abuse and dependence in a general population sample: Evidence of
dimensional latent structure and implications for DSM-V. Addic-
tion, 104, 742–751.
Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumie
`re, 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.
Wilson, G. (1978). The secrets of sexual fantasy. London: J. M. Dent &
Sons.
Arch Sex Behav
123