MMPI-BASED PERSONALITY T Y P E S AMONG JUVENILE SEXUAL

OFFENDERS
WAYNE R. SMITH, CAREN MONASTERSKY AND ROBERT M. DEISHER
University of Washington, Seattle

The MMPls of 262 adolescent males who committed sexual offenses were
categorized by means of cluster analysis into four distinct groups. Each of
these groups was found to contain different two-point code types. Referral
offense, historical and clinical data were compared for each of the four cluster
groups and for each of the two-point code types; the latter provided more
reliable discrimination among groups. The four modal personality types sug-
gested by the cluster analysis indicate, contrary to previous research, that
juvenile sexual offenders are a heterogeneous group who represent a wide
variety of personality traits and levels of adaptation.

Although a number of studies have examined the personality characteristics of adult

rapists (e.g., Groth & Burgess, 1977; Rader, 1977; Roda, 1978) and adult child molesters
(e.g., Armentrout & Hauer, 1978; Cohen, Seghorn, & Calmas, 1969; Swanson, 1968),
few data have been published on juvenile sexual offenders. The few studies that have
been published are limited by the use of measures of unknown reliability, by inadequate
description of the samples, or by the lack of comparison groups.
Despite the problems in research design and questions about the generalizability
of results, there appears to be a consensus in previous research with regard to certain
aspects of the juvenile sexual offender’s behavior. It generally is agreed that juvenile
sexual offending behavior does not constitute a single homogeneous class of behavior.
At minimum, a distinction needs to be made between noncoercive, somewhat passive
sexual contact between an adolescent and, often, a younger child and, on the other hand,
the more threatening and aggressive sexual assault (Deisher, Wenet, Paperny, Clark,
& Fehrenbach, 1982; Groth, 1977; Shoor, Speed, & Bartlet, 1966). Other types of juvenile
sexual offending behavior identified in the literature include the adolescent offender whose
mental illness is apparent in the act (Shoor et al., 1966); the adolescent offender who
has no physical contact with the victim (e.g., indecent exposure, stealing underwear,
or peeping; Deisher et al., 1982); and the adolescent sexual psychopath who displays
a general pattern of aggressiveness, manipulativeness, and lack of guilt and remorse
(Markey, 1950).
It also generally is agreed that the typical juvenile sexual offender displays a basic
disturbance in social relations, particularly in relations with peers. Studies that attempt
to differentiate the child molester from the aggressive rapist (Deisher et al., 1982; Groth,
1979; Shoor et al., 1966) generally claim that the group of offenders who commit relatively
less aggressive sex offenses against younger children display a “pan-immaturity,” are
socially and sexually naive, appear passive and dependent in interactions with adults, and
have few peer friends or acquaintances. Apart from the group of child molesters, the
social relations of juvenile sexual offenders typically are portrayed as similar to the social
relations of juvenile non-sexual delinquents. In Lewis, Shankok, and Pincus’ (1979) com-

This research was funded in part by Washington State DSHS, Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation (DJR).
Statistical consultation was provided by Lynne K . Edwards, formerly of the University of Washington Child
Development and Mental Retardation Center’s Data Management Services. Jim Paulson’s editing also is
acknowledged gratefully.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Wayne R. Smith, Ph.D., M.P.H., Director of Research,
Adolescent Clinic, WJ-10, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195.
422
 MMPI-based Personality Types 423

parison of incarcerated violent juvenile sexual offenders and violent juvenile non-sexual
delinquents and in Ageton's (1 983) sample of general population, self-identified juvenile
sexual offenders and juvenile delinquents, the similarities between juvenile sexual
offenders and juvenile delinquents in peer social relations are more striking than are
the differences. Lewis et al. noted, for example, that both the violent juvenile sexual
offenders and the violent juvenile delinquents constantly are fighting with peers and
adults.
The aim of the present study was to identify a clinically useful typology of juvenile
sexual offenders (JSOs), specifically among relatively less violent male sexual offenders.
By clinically useful, we mean a typology that is replicable, makes sense in light of what
already is known about JSOs, and has the potential to suggest hypotheses about the
antecedents and causes of different types of juvenile sexual offending behavior. The
MMPI was chosen as the basis for generating this typology because it is a widely used,
objective measure of personality with adequate norms for adolescent populations (Marks,
Seeman, & Haller, 1974). Although two-point code types are the conventional method
of grouping MMPI profiles for both clinical and research purposes (Butcher & Tellegen,
1978), the present study employs multivariate cluster analytic procedures to identify
smaller homogeneous groups of MMPI profiles.

METHOD
Subjects
The sample was selected from a group of approximately 500 adolescents referred
to the University of Washington Juvenile Sexual Offender Program (JSOP) between
October 1977 and November 1984. The JSOP provided community-based evaluations
and treatment services for sexual offending adolescents and their families. The primary
referral sources included the county juvenile court (approximately 30%) and local child
protection agencies (approximately 28%). Referrals also came from private health care
professionals and parents. Because fewer than 1070 of the adolescents were incarcerated
at the time of the evaluation, the JSOP sample represents a relatively less violent and
less aggressive population than samples of incarcerated juvenile sexual offenders. Selected
for the current sample were the 262 males who committed a documented sexual offense
and who completed the JSOP evaluation procedures, including a clinically valid MMPI.'
Procedure
Each subject and his family were interviewed extensively over several sessions as
part of the clinical evaluation by family therapists trained in juvenile sexual offender
evaluation and treatment. At the conclusion of each evaluation, the evaluator responded
to a standardized questionnaire that contained items that described the referral sexual
offense, the victim of that offense, previous sexual and non-sexual offenses, and any
sexual or physical abuse of the offender by others. In addition, the evaluator responded
to several items that were related to the offender's clinical presentation, items considered
important in determining the risk of future re-offense, such as degree of defensiveness
during the interview, empathy toward the victim, and degree of family dysfunction.
These responses were used in the current study to characterize offender groups defined
by their performance on the MMPI.
Table 1 presents summary data on the ages and types of referral sexual offenses
committed by the 262 male juvenile sexual offenders. The mean age of subjects was 15.3

'A clinically valid MMPI was defined as an MMPI with at least 90% of the items answered and that
was judged to be a result of neither a random-responding nor a systematically biased (e.g., all true or all
false) response set.
424 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 1987, Vol. 43, No. 4

years; 98% of the subjects were between 13 and 17 years old. Molestation, defined as
sexual touching short of penetration of the victim, was the most frequent referral offense
(42.4%). Over two-thirds of the offenders committed their referral offense against a victim
younger than the offender by 4 years or more. In addition, 39.6% of the subjects had
themselves been abused previously either sexually or physically, in the judgment of the
evaluator; 66.9% had committed a sexual offense prior to the referral offense.

Table 1
Age of Offender and Victim and Type of Referral Offense

Age of offender Number of subjects Percent

12 2 .8
13 16 6.1
14 54 20.6
15 65 24.8
16 71 27.1
17 51 19.5
18 3 1.1
Overall M: 15.34 years

Type of referral offense Number of subjects Percent

Rape or attempted rape 92 35.1

Molestation 111 42.4
“Hands-off’ offense (e.g., exposing, stealing underwear) 38 14.5
Missing data 21 8.0

Age of victim Number of subjects Percent

4 or more years younger than the offender 178 67.9

Within 4 years of offender or older 63 24.0
Missing data 21 8.0

Statistical Analysis
The sample of 262 MMPI profiles first were grouped by a multivariate cluster analysis
procedure and then by two-point code type. Next, the types of referral offenses and
historical and clinical data were compared among groups within each grouping method.
In order to obtain orthogonal factors for submission to the cluster analysis, we
first undertook a principal components analysis of the 13 non-K-corrected, age-adjusted
MMPI scale scores (Marks et al., 1974), using the SPSS Factor procedure. This yielded
a four-factor solution, which accounted for 79.90’10of the common variance of the 13
clinical scales. The four factor scores for each of the 262 subjects were submitted to
Clustan (Wishart, 1978) a Fortran IV-based clustering procedure, employing Ward’s
method for hierarchical or stepwise fusing of cases into homogeneous clusters. In order
to assess the reliability of the resulting clusters, two additional procedures were under-
taken. First, the clustering procedure was re-run on the full sample with different group-
ings used to start the hierarchic clustering, and, second, the clustering procedure was
re-run on a randomly selected subsample of 135 cases. Based on the conformity of the
three solutions and the change in the error sum of squares produced by solutions with
different numbers of groups, a four-group solution was selected.
 MMPI-based Personality Types 425

In order to obtain the most reliable clusters for further analysis, all cases were
eliminated that failed to overlap with similar clusters formed by the relocated clustering
solution. Thus, 84 cases were eliminated because they failed to be assigned to the same
cluster by both clustering solutions.
Finally, the four resulting groups were cross-tabulated with the characteristics of
the referral offense, and historical and clinical data derived from the JSOP evaluations.
The reliability of the resulting differences in rates between the four groups was evaluated
by means of multiple Chi-square analyses.
The full set of 262 MMPI profiles also were categorized into two-point code types
by procedures suggested by Marks, Seeman, and Haller (1974). Three additional code
types were employed in the categorization: “Normal K + ” (criteria: all clinical scales
< T of 70; at least 6 clinical scores IT of 60; L and K 2 F; K - F 2 5 T; F <
T of 60); “Normal K + L - ” (criteria: same as “Normal K + ,” but L < F); and “Ab-
normal F” (criteria: F 2 T of 80). All reciprocal two-point code types that contained
10 or more cases were retained for comparison with the characteristics of the referral
offense and historical and clinical data; differences again were evaluated by means of
the Chi-square statistic.
RESULTS
The principal components analysis of the 262 JSO MMPIs yielded four major
orthogonal dimensions (Table 2). The first dimension, which accounted for nearly half
the common variance, appears to represent a propensity for impulsive acting out; all

Table 2
Results of Principal Components Analysis of MMPI T-scores for 262 Male Juvenile Sexual
Offenders

Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

L .131 .092 - ,162 .585**

F .300** - .015 - .122 .243*
K - .052 - .I71 .220* .248*
Hs ,121 .054 .139 .114
D - ,083 .339** ,180 ,127
HY .023 - .151 .465** .113
PD ,169 -.151 ,115 - ,065
MF - .212* - .016 .542** - .382**
PA .248* - .119 .015 .128
PT .054 .I84 - ,018 - ,181
sc .174 .080 - ,056 - ,024
MA .301** - .256* - ,133 - .014
SI - .158 .619** -.I20 - .023
Eigenvalue 4.61 1.48 1.11 .79
Percentage of common
variance 46.1 14.8 11.1 7.9
Cumulative percentage 46.1 60.9 72.0 79.9

*Factor score coefficient 2 .20.

**Factor score coefficient 2 f .30.
426 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 1987, Vol. 43, No. 4

of the clinical scales typically indicative of acting-out load highly on this factor.2 The
second factor is characterized by high loadings on the Social Introversion and Depres-
sion scales and may represent a constellation of traits characterized by social inhibi-
tion, depressed affect, and low energy. The third factor is dominated by loadings on
the MaleIFemale and Hysteria scales and may represent a characterological over-reliance
on repression and denial. The fourth factor, composed of high loadings on the Lie scale
and the Male/Female scale, may represent a propensity to naively deny difficulties along
with a hypermasculine identification. Together, these four factors accounted for nearly
80% of the common variance of the 13 MMPI scales.
The four groups of cases derived from the cluster analysis are compared on 20 MMPI
indices in Table 3. These comparisons were undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of
the clustering procedures. One-way analyses of variance were found to be significant
(p < .001) for each of the 20 indices, and a majority of the comparisons between in-
dividual means were reliably different using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference Test
(alpha = .05). Below is offered an interpretation of each of the four mean profiles based
on the descriptive narratives formulated by Marks, Seeman, and Haller (1974):

Group I. Normal range profile. Likely to be shy, overcontrolled and a worrier

with few friends; attempts to portray self as morally above reproach.
Group 11. Most disturbed profile. Likely to be demanding and narcissistic, us-
ing illness (particularly physical illness) to gain attention. Argumen-
tative, insecure, and likely to overrely on personal fantasy to solve
problems.
Group 111. Normal range profile. Likely to be frank and realistic in describing
self. Socially outgoing, normal affect and no impaired judgment.
Likely to be emotionally overcontrolled and given to (perhaps violent)
emotional outbursts.
Group IV. Abnormal range profile. Likely to impulsively act-out, display poor
self-control and poor judgment. Distrust and alienation likely to be
prominent. Vulnerable to perceived threat; likely to strike out in
anticipation. Schizoid and undersocialized.

The most frequent two-point code types within each cluster grouping are presented
in Table 4. With few exceptions, each cluster grouping appears to encompass a distinct
set of code types and, thereby, provides additional evidence for the reliability of these
groups. Overall, nearly 23% of the subjects produced normal profiles (i.e., “Normal
K + ” and “Normal K + L - ” combined), and the next most frequent code type was “78”
(7.6% of the subjects).
Finally, both of the two methods of aggregating MMPI profiles were evaluated with
respect to how well they ordered the information collected by the JSOP evaluators dur-
ing the offender’s evaluation. A useful MMPI grouping scheme would be one that resulted
in reliable differences among groups on referral offense characteristics, clinical presenta-
tion, or historical variables. The cluster grouping resulted in only two comparisons that
were statistically reliable at p < .05; it should be noted, however, that missing data

’Even though the Psychopathic Deviant (PD)scale does not contribute reliably to the first factor, it con-
tributes more to the first factor than any other factor.
’Interpretations of mean profile for each of four groups derived by cluster analysis. Interpretations based
on Marks et al. (1974).
 MMPf-based Personah‘iy Types 427

Table 3
Mean MMPI Scores for Four Groups Derived from Cluster Analysis

MMPI scale Group I Group I1 Group 111 Group IV

L 59.0 (9.9)2 58.0(10.1)2 45.0 (6.7)’ 46.5 (6.9)’

F 49.9 (6.8)’ 79.7(14.7)’ 46.4 (7.1)‘ 63.5(10.8)’
K 52.6 (7.4)’ 49.7 (9.3)’ 49.8 (7.5)’ 38.8 (5.0)’
Hs 49.8 (8.3)’ 76.7(11.8)’* 50.5 (7.2)’.* 54.9 (8.9)’
D 58.6 (9.3)’* 69.4 (8.7)’ 52.3(11.0)’ 51.3 (9.3)’
HY 52.6 (7.6)’** 71.8 (8.2)’’ 57.1 (9.8)2* 50.4 (8.3)’
PD 51.8 (9.6)’ 69.4 (8.1)’ 58.9(10.1)2* 64.9(1 1.1)’
MF 49.3 ( 8 . 5 ) ’ 65.8(11.3)’ 65.7( 10.3)’ 52.9 (7.9)’
PA 49.2 (7.1)‘ 68.0(12.7)’ 51.3 (6.1)’ 59.9 (9.6)’
PT 48.2(10.0)’ 64.3( 1 1.5)’ 50.8 (9.0)’ 62.3 (8.4)’
sc 49.5 (9.3)’ 7 1.6( 1 1 .9)’* 50.7 (9.6)’ 65.1 (9.0)’.
MA 46.8 (5.8)” 62.9(11.7)’ 51.3 (8.0)’ 64.6 (6.7)”
SI 57.0( 10.9)‘* 55.9 (7.4)2 48.9 (8.8)’ 53.7 (9.3)’
Mean of clinical scales 50.8 (5.4)’ 69.3 (6.6)’ 52.8 (5.4)’ 59.2 (6.0)2
Goldberg Index 56.9( 13.8)‘ 61 .5(21.7)2 39.0( 11.7)’ 58.7( 16.2)‘
No. of scales
> T = 7 0 .364 (.75)’ 4.071(2.16)’ .725 (.96)’-‘ 1.273( I S9)‘
Factor 1 - .727 (.42)’ 1.390 (.93)’ - ,780 (.56)’ .792 (.70)‘
Factor 2 .708 (.87)’ .329 (.72)’*’ -.268 (.71)’ ,036 (.75)’lZ
Factor 3 -.507 (.66)’ 1.204 (.92)’ .656 (.88)’ - .859 (.57)’
Factor 4 ,787 (.74)’ 1.065 (.99)2 - .730 (32)’ -.382 (.63)’
Number of subjects 55 28 40 55

Note: Asterisks (*) denote highest mean clinical scale scores within groups. Superscripts denote scores
within rows (i.e., across groups) that do not reliably differ using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference Test
(a = .05).

Table 4
Most Frequent Two-point Code Types for Each Group Derived from Cluster Analysis

Group 1 Group 2

Normal K + 22(40.0%) Abnormal F 13(46.4%)

02/20 15(27.3 070) 13/31 6(21.4%)
42 4 (7.3%) 35/53 4( 14.3%)
13131 4 (7.3%) All others - 5(17.9%)
Normal K L + 3 (5.4%) 28( 100.0%)
78 2 (3.6%)
A11 others - 5 (9.1%)
55( 100.0%)
428 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 1987, Vol. 43, No. 4

Table 4 (Continued)
Group 3 Group 4

45/54 lO(25 .O%) 49/94 12(21.8%)

35/53 7(17.5%) 48/84 7(12.7%)
Normal K + L - 7( 17.5%) 78 7( 12.770)
Normal K + 5( 12.5%) 86/68 6( 10.9%)
51 3 (7.5%) 98 6(10.9%)
59/95 3 (7.5%) 46 4 (7.3%)
All others - 5( 12.5%) 47/74 3 (5.5yo)
40( 100.0%) 59/95 3(12.7%)
All others 7(12.7%)
55(lOO.O%)

in the analysis reduced the number of cases by up to 50% in some comparisons and,
thus, reduced the power of the tests. The direction of the differences suggests that those
JSOs who had another sexual offender in their family were more likely to fall into Group
IV and less likely to fall into Groups I1 and 111. Those JSOs who resisted openly describing
their referral offense were more likely to fall into Group I and less likely to fall into
Groups 111 and IV.
Grouping the profiles by two-point code types was relatively more successful in pro-
ducing reliable differences on characteristics of the referral offense and clinical pre-
sentation variables. Rapes were committed more frequently by those characterized as
“Abnormal F” or “78,” whereas those who committed “hands-off’ offenses, such as peep-
ing or indecent exposure, were more likely to obtain one of the two normal profiles.
Those who committed offenses against victims much younger than themselves (i.e., by
4 years or more) obtained the following profiles relatively more frequently: “Abnormal
F,” “20/02,” “48/84,” and “78;” those who offended against same-age-or-older victims
were characterized more frequently as “Normal K + ,” “45/54,” or “49/94.” Excessive
violence was used more frequently by those who produced “Abnormal F,” “13/31,” and
“78” profiles and used less frequently by those who produced “02/20” and 99/95’’ pro-
files. The two normal groups (i.e., “K + ” and “K + L - ”) appeared to contrast in the
propensity to choose male victims; those who offended against at least one male victim
were more likely to be characterized “K + L - ,” and those who offended only against
females were more likely to be characterized as “K + ,” “Abnormal F,” “49/94,” or
“59/95.” Those who obtained “45/54” profiles and “78” profiles were more likely to
display some concern for the victim during evaluation. Finally, each juvenile sexual
offender was evaluated with regard to displaying “rigid sexual attitudes” during the evalua-
tion. Those who displayed this characteristic were more likely to produce MMPI pro-
files categorized as “Abnormal F,” “13/3 1,” “49/94,” or “78.” Those who did not display
rigid sexual attitudes were more likely to produce a “48/84” profile.

DISCUSSION
By suggesting the existence of four distinct personality types within this popula-
tion of relatively less violent male JSOs, the results of the current study provide an op-
portunity to investigate the interactions among personality and situational factors that
underlie adolescent sexual offending behavior. Previous attempts to identify subgroups
of juvenile sexual offenders have been equivocal, but have suggested that less-violent
JSOs do not typically display major psychiatric problems, but do display social immatur-
 MMPI-based Personality Types 429

ity and isolation from peers (Deisher et al., 1982). Our results suggest that this may
be an adequate description of a large proportion of JSOs (i.e., our Group I), but that
there is also a subgroup of JSOs who may be considered well adjusted and outgoing
though overcontrolled (Group 111), a subgroup with major characterological problems
that lead them to impulsively act-out (Group IV), and a subgroup of offenders who are
likely to be overtly emotionally disturbed (Group 11).
From the earliest studies of JSOs (Doshay, 1943), there have been disagreements
about the most apt reference groups for juvenile sexual offenders. Are they best com-
pared to groups of adolescents who are experiencing emotional problems, to juvenile
delinquents who commit non-sexual offenses, or to adolescents from the general popula-
tion? The typology of personality characteristics in our results appears to be consistent
with previous attempts to characterize children and adolescents who are experiencing
a wide range of adaptational difficulties. Quay (1972), for instance, in his review of
multivariate studies has identified four main patterns or classes of childhood and adoles-
cent problems: Conduct disorder (cf. our Group IV), personality disorder (cf. our Group
11), immaturity (cf. our Group I), and socialized delinquency (perhaps comparable to
our Group 111). In contrast, our MMPI-based personality types appear less similar to
types identified in populations such as adult sexual offenders and juvenile non-sexual
offenders. Several studies of adult sexual offenders have identified the 48/84 and 43/34
as modal code types (Armentrout & Hauer, 1978; Rader, 1977; Ullman, 1980); these
code types accounted for less than 7% of our sample of adolescent offenders. Studies
of adolescent non-sexual delinquents indicate a high proportion of profiles with signifi-
cant elevations on scales 4, 8, and 9 (Hathaway & Monachesi, 1953, 1957; Lueger, 1983).
In our sample, these scales dominated the two-point code types only of Group IV, the
impulsive acting-out group (Table 4).
Based on these comparisons with other studies, it may be best to characterize our
sample of less violent JSOs as a heterogeneous group who display a variety of personality
characteristics and levels of adaptation, most comparable to normal and less violent
non-sexual delinquent populations.
Comparing the MMPI-derived groups on information obtained by the JSOP
evaluators suggests that personality characteristics as measured by the MMPI may not
be highly associated with clinical presentation or history of previous offense. Categoriz-
ing the sample by two-point code types did allow for some differentiation of referral
sexual offense characteristics. The Abnormal F and the 78 code types appeared to be
associated consistently with more serious sexual offenses (i.e., rape and excessive force),
whereas the normal profiles were associated more consistently with hands-off referral
offenses and offenses against victims of the same age or older than the offender.
The results of this study have implications for the utility of the MMPI in clinical
and research practice that involves adolescent populations. The MMPI has been criticized
as failing to measure the important dimensions for nonpsychiatric, less seriously disturbed
adolescent populations (California Department of Youth Authority, 1983). There also
have been criticisms that the adolescent norms underestimate psychopathology (Archer,
1984). Further, even though categorizing the MMPI profile by two-point code type is
recognized as the most clinically useful procedure for aggregating profiles, it frequently
results in too many groups for research purposes.
Our findings suggest that age-adjusted MMPI profiles can be useful in identifying
subgroups within a less disturbed, nonpsychiatric adolescent male population. In addi-
tion, the multivariate clustering procedure appears to have potential for allowing two-
point code types to be combined into meaningful and distinct “families” of profiles,
perhaps thereby accounting for clinically significant features of the profile (such as mean
elevation) that are more difficult to incorporate into the two-point classification. Although
our data suggest that replicable and meaningful personality clusters can be identified,
430 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 1987, Vol. 43, No. 4

the reliability and precise nature of the personality traits need to be assessed through
replication in other populations of juvenile sexual offenders and suitable adolescent com-
parison groups.

REFERENCES
AGETON,S. (1983). Sexual assault among adolescents. Lexington, MA: Heath.
ARCHER,R. P . (1984). Use of the MMPI with adolescents. A review of salient issues. Clinical Psychology
Reviews, 4, 241-251.
ARMENTROUT, J . A., & HAUER,A. L. (1978). MMPIs of rapists of adults, rapists of children, and non-
rapist sex offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 330-332.
BUTCHER,J. N., & TELLEGEN, A. (1978). Common methodological problems in MMPI research. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 620-628.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTHAUTHORITY. (1 983). Classifying ojffenders: The Jesness Inventory classijka-
tion system technical manual. Sacramento: Author.
COHEN,M. L., SEGHORN, T., & CALMAS, W. (1969). Sociometric study of the sex offender. Journal o f A b -
normal Psychology, 74, 249-255.
DEISHER,R. D., WENET,G. A., PAPERNY, D. M., CLARK, T. F., & FEHRENBACH, P . A. (1982). Adolescent
sexual offense behavior: Role of the physician. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 2, 279-286.
DOSHAY,L. J . (1943). The boy sex oflender and his lafer career. New York: Grune & Stratton.
GROTH,N. (1977). The adolescent sexual offender and his prey. International Journal of Oflender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 21, 249-254.
GROTH,N. (1979). Men who rape. New York: Plenum Press.
GROTH,A. N., & BURGESS, A. W . (1977). Rape: A sexual deviation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
47, 400-406.
HATHAWAY, S. R., & MONACHESI, E. D. (1953). Analyzing andpredicting juvenile delinquency with the
MMPI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
HATHAWAY, S. R., & MONACHESI, E. D. (1957). The personalities of predelinquent boys. Journalof Criminal
Law, Criminology and Political Science, 48, 149-163.
LEWIS,D. O., SHANKOK, S. S., & PINCUS,J . H. (1979). Juvenile male sexual assaulters. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 136, 1194-1196.
LUEGER, R. J. (1983). The use of the MMPI-168 with delinquent adolescents. Journalof Clinical Psychology,
39, 139-141.
MARKEY, 0 .B. (1950). A study of aggressive sex misbehavior in adolescents brought to court. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 20, 719-73 1.
MARKS,P . A., SEEMAN, W., & HALLER, D. L. (1974). The actuarial use of the MMPI with adolescents and
adults. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
QUAY,H. C. (1972). Patterns of aggression, withdrawal and immaturity. In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry
(Eds.), Psychopathological disorders in childhood. New York: John Wiley.
RADER,C. (1977). MMPI profiles types of exposers, rapists, and assaulters in a court services population.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 61-69.
RODA,R. T. (1978). Clinical classification of the rapist. In R. T. Roda (Ed.), Clinicalaspects of the rapist.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
SHOOR,M., SPEED,M. H., & BARTLET, C . (1966). Syndrome of the adolescent child molester. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 783-789.
SWANSON, D. W. (1968). Adult sexual abuse and children: The man and circumstances. Diseasesof the Nervous
System, 29, 677-683.
ULLMAN,M. I. (1980). An MMPI study of the relationship between personality and criminalsexual behavior.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
WISHART,D. (1978). Clustan User Manual. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburg University Press.