JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

2017, VOL. 26, NO. 6, 657–676

https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2017.1336504

Comparing Female- and Male-Perpetrated Child Sexual

Abuse: A Mixed-Methods Analysis
Amanda Burgess-Proctora, Erin B. Comartinb, and Sheryl P. Kubiakc
a
Criminal Justice Program, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA; bSchool of Social Work,
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA; cSchool of Social Work, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This mixed-methods study compares experiences of female- and Received 8 December 2016
male-perpetrated child sexual abuse using self-report data from a Revised 11 April 2017
correctional subsample of 26 women and 25 men currently incar- Accepted 29 April 2017
cerated for a sex crime against a child. First, we use bivariate and KEYWORDS
logistic regression analyses to determine whether there are dif- gender issues; policy; sexual
ferences in offender, victim, and offense characteristics between abuse perpetration;
women and men who commit child sexual abuse. Second, we theoretical issues
examine participants’ open-ended responses eliciting details
about their offenses. Quantitative results reveal some differences
between women and men in victim characteristics, presence of a
co-offender, and adulthood experiences with violence but no
differences between women and men in experiences of child-
hood adversity, including prior child sexual abuse victimization.
Qualitative results, however, suggest marked differences in the
way women and men characterize their offenses. Overall, findings
indicate that women and men report unique experiences with
child sexual abuse perpetration and therefore would benefit from
gender-specific treatment.

Introduction
Beyond stereotypes of “dirty old men” lurking in public spaces lies an
uncomfortable truth: a small but certain proportion of child sexual abuse
(CSA) perpetrators are women (Gannon & Rose, 2008; Grayston & DeLuca,
1999). Women, especially mothers, who sexually offend against children violate
several cultural taboos (Elliott, 1994); perhaps because of this, research evidence
about this group is scarce.1 The research literature on women’s sex crime
perpetration is small and underdeveloped relative to that of men, and this
knowledge gap is especially pronounced for perpetrators of CSA (Bourke,
Doherty, McBride, Morgan, & McGee, 2014; Gannon & Rose, 2008). Given
the long-term impact of CSA on victims (Denov, 2004), effective prevention and
treatment programs are essential for reducing perpetration risk and, in turn,
harm to victims. However, CSA offender treatment programs are mostly geared

CONTACT Amanda Burgess-Proctor burgessp@oakland.edu 525 Varner Hall, Oakland University,

Rochester MI, 48309.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
658 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

toward men, and there is scant evidence of gender-specific interventions aimed

at the unique needs of women offenders (e.g., see Gannon & Rose, 2008).
The purpose of the current study is to explore differences in women’s and
men’s experiences with CSA perpetration. Our analysis draws on insights from the
sex offender literature on women’s sexual offending in general and CSA perpetra-
tion specifically as well as from the feminist criminological literature on women’s
pathways to offending. After reviewing the relevant literature, we present our
mixed-methods analysis. First, we use bivariate and logistic regression analyses to
determine whether there are statistically significant differences in offender, victim,
or offense characteristics between women and men who commit CSA. Second, to
provide additional context for our quantitative results, we compare women’s and
men’s responses to open-ended survey items eliciting details about the child sex
offense for which they are incarcerated. After presenting our findings, we discuss
implications of our results for future research as well as for practice and policy.

Comparing women’s and men’s CSA perpetration

Women perpetrate a relatively small percentage of all reported sex offenses. In a
recent analysis of National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) crime
data, Williams and Bierie (2015) identified 802,150 sexual offenses occurring
between 1991 and 2011 where the sex of the offender was known; of those
incidents, approximately 5% involved female perpetrators (see also Cortoni,
Hanson, & Coache, 2010; Embry & Lyons, 2012; Vandiver & Walker, 2002).
With respect to CSA specifically, the NIBRS analysis revealed at the bivariate
level that women offended against younger victims than men and that a greater
proportion of women than men offended against prepubescent victims, but
these differences disappeared at the multivariate level in the presence of controls
(Williams & Bierie, 2015). However, McLeod (2015) used a national sample of
substantiated CSA cases reported to the child welfare system and found that
women were the primary perpetrator in 21% of cases, approximately four times
the proportion of women reported in the NIBRS analysis. This larger proportion
of female perpetrators calls for further investigation into this subgroup of
women who commit CSA.
Although relatively small, the body of research on this topic offers some
identifiable patterns in women’s CSA perpetration. Compared to men, women
who commit CSA tend to be younger, more likely to select younger victims,
more likely to perpetrate against their own biological children or other known
children, and less likely to use violence or force, although there are some noted
exceptions to these trends (Bourke et al., 2014; Gannon & Rose, 2008; McLeod,
2015). In addition, there is some evidence that substance abuse plays less of a role
in female-perpetrated than male-perpetrated CSA (Gannon & Rose, 2008;
Miller, Turner, & Henderson, 2009). Finally, women who commit CSA often
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 659

do so in the company (and/or at the behest) of a male co-offender (Gannon &

Rose, 2008; Nathan & Ward, 2001; Nathan & Ward, 2002).
The role of traumatic experiences such as childhood and adult victimization
may be particularly important for understanding women’s CSA perpetration.
Women who commit CSA tend to have long and extensive victimization
histories that include experiencing sexual abuse in childhood (Hickey,
McCrory, Farmer, & Vizard, 2008; Jespersen, Lalumiere, & Seto, 2009;
McLeod, 2015) as well as violent victimization in adulthood, especially by an
intimate partner (Grayston & DeLuca, 1999; Nathan & Ward, 2001). Given that
some women are threatened or coerced into sexual offending by an abusive male
intimate partner (e.g., see Grayston & DeLuca, 1999), measures of adulthood
violent victimization and perpetration have relevance for investigating and
comparing women’s and men’s CSA perpetration.
In addition, while much of the research on men who commit CSA empha-
sizes the role of cognitive distortions and deviant arousal patterns, these schemas
may be less relevant among women (Gannon & Rose, 2008; Grayston & DeLuca,
1999). For example, evidence suggests that women who commit CSA are less
likely to implicitly associate children and sex (Gannon, Rose, & Williams, 2009)
and to receive a pedophilia diagnosis (Nathan & Ward, 2001) than men,
although the empirical evidence on these topics is limited (Gannon & Rose,
2008) and exceptions to these patterns exist (Grayston & DeLuca, 1999; Nathan
& Ward, 2001). Given evidence of trauma histories among female sex offenders
(FSOs), some in the practice community have questioned use of the term
“pedophile” for women CSA perpetrators who were themselves CSA victims,
as that label blurs the line between a mental health diagnosis and a trauma
response (Davis, 2014)—although the same argument could apply to male CSA
perpetrators as well.
In light of these differences, the treatment needs for these two populations of
offenders may diverge in important ways. Research on the general population of
sexual offenders suggests that women may require interventions that address
psychopathological concerns such as anxiety, depression, and personality dis-
orders (Miller et al., 2009). On this subject of underlying risk factors, McLeod
(2015) observes that FSOs’ multilayered mental and behavioral health needs may
manifest in separate and distinct risk factors from those experienced by men.
Regarding CSA perpetration in particular, researchers emphasize that victim
and offense characteristics differ between women and men, and as a result,
treatment interventions should be tailored accordingly (Bourke et al., 2014).
Still, other scholars have noted that the treatment needs of female and male sex
offenders—including those who offend against children—overlap to some
degree, suggesting that treatment modalities might benefit from tailoring on
the basis of offender type more so than offender sex (Nathan & Ward, 2001).
Unfortunately, empirical research on the efficacy of treatment interventions for
660 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

women who commit CSA is problematically scarce (Gannon & Rose, 2008;
Grayston & DeLuca, 1999).
Perhaps due to limited empirical knowledge, there are few theoretical frame-
works for women’s CSA perpetration. Efforts at theorizing mostly have come in
the form of typology development, which often is based on the experiences of
men (Gannon & Rose, 2008). Summing across existing typologies of women
who offend against children (e.g., see Mathews, Hunter, & Vuz, 1997; Nathan &
Ward, 2001; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004), Gannon and Rose (2008) observe the
following general categories: “There are women who engage with adolescents,
usually male, there are women who offend alongside a coperpetrating male
(sometimes coerced and sometimes not), there are women who specifically
target pre-pubescent children, and there are women who offend as part of a
wider criminal career” (p. 448).
Within criminology, feminist scholars have emphasized the need for gender-
specific theories of offending, recognizing that girls and women often experience
offending trajectories that are distinct from those of boys and men (Daly, 1992).
One particularly relevant advancement is the feminist pathways theoretical model,
which examines women’s and girls’ offending in the context of their prior
victimization experiences and considers trauma histories including child abuse,
substance abuse, and adult violent victimization as risk factors for women’s
criminal offending (e.g., see McDaniels-Wilson & Belknap, 2009). To date the
feminist pathways model has not appeared within the FSO literature, although
FSO researchers have employed other pathways-based approaches. For example,
in their analysis of sexually abusive juveniles, Hickey and colleagues (2008)
observe that, compared to boys, girls were significantly more likely to have
experienced CSA and at a younger age and to have experienced more violations
of sexual boundaries at home, suggesting that pathways to sexually abusive
behavior differ for female and male juveniles. Thus, evidence suggests that
analyses like ours that aim to differentiate between women’s and men’s experi-
ences with CSA perpetration should include measures of participants’ trauma,
abuse, and victimization histories.

Methods
This exploratory, mixed-methods study examines self-report data from a correc-
tional subsample of 26 women and 25 men who are currently incarcerated for a
sex offense against a child under the age of 13.2 Pen and paper surveys were
administered in 2011 to participants in order to collect information on a range of
demographic, victim, and offense characteristics.3 The instrument also included
behavioral health measures to assess the presence of mental illness, substance use
disorders, cognitive distortions, and sex addiction among participants. Due to the
small sample size, data analysis is predominantly descriptive, although two regres-
sion models were used to further investigate bivariate findings.
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 661

Sample
The state’s department of corrections authorized the study to assess similarities
and differences between women and men who sexually offend. A review of the
state’s Correction Management Information System (CMIS) found 103 women
and 9,874 men incarcerated for a sex crime. They were designated in the
database as having an active or prior sentence that involved a sex crime.
The focus of the original study was on women, so the survey was developed,
reviewed and approved by the third author’s university institutional review board
(IRB), and piloted with 25 FSOs. All surveys were administered in the only prison
for women in the state. After minor changes were made to the instrument and a
second review was completed by the IRB, the survey was administered over four
“call out” data collection sessions. The second wave of data collection resulted in
35 surveys, totaling 60 usable surveys. Based on the 103 FSOs initially identified in
the CMIS database, the survey from which our subsample is drawn yielded a 58%
response rate among women. This response rate is likely influenced by survey
completion being a low priority for incarcerated women who may have had other
obligations during the data collection sessions. Only 2 women who came to the
data collection sessions declined to participate.
In contrast, the male sex offenders (MSOs) identified in the CMIS database
were held across 41 facilities. Random selection was not feasible, so one facility was
selected as the sampling site because it provided sex offender treatment programs.
Only those men on the wait list for sex offender programming were asked to
participate. A total of 102 men were approached to participate in 1 of the 3 “call
out” data collection sessions. After 30 men declined to participate and 3 surveys
were returned blank, there were a total of 69 usable surveys. The survey from
which our subsample is drawn yielded a 68% response rate among men.
Thus, a total of 129 usable surveys were collected from incarcerated FSOs and
MSOs. From these surveys, we analyzed responses of participants who were
incarcerated for a sex crime against a child under the age of 13. Selecting only
surveys from participants who were incarcerated for CSA against a child under the
age of 13 resulted in a subsample of 51 individuals, 26 women and 25 men. For
women and men alike, the surveys were anonymous, so it is not possible to test for
differences between those who completed surveys and those who did not.

Procedures
Two members of the research team administered the surveys. Both had prior
experience working with incarcerated individuals through either their clinical
practice or having collected data for research purposes. Research team members
provided and read aloud to participants an information sheet explaining that the
survey was anonymous and that no identifying information was being collected.
The information sheet did not indicate that the survey was about sex offenses.
662 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

Participants were instructed to put the survey in the provided envelope and
return it to the front of the room, regardless of whether they returned a
completed or blank survey. No incentives were given to participate in the study.

Instrument
The survey included questions about participants’ demographic information,
about the sexual offenses for which participants had been incarcerated (either
currently or in the past), and about their victim(s). To measure trauma histories,
the survey included items about participants’ experiences with adversity in child-
hood as well as about their experiences with violent victimization and perpetration
as adults. Four measures on the instrument assessed participants’ behavioral
health, including general measures of severe mental illness and substance use as
well as pertinent sex-related assessments. As this study used self-report measures,
questions assessing participants’ levels of social desirability also were included.
Finally, two open-ended questions were coded to analyze how participants
described the offense for which they were incarcerated.

Offender demographic characteristics

Offender characteristics collected from the survey included race/ethnicity (col-
lapsed into white and non-white categories), age at the time of offense, and highest
level of education achieved (high school or GED or lower and some college or
college degree(s)).

Victim and offense characteristics

Victim characteristics collected from the survey included the victims’ age at the
time of the offense and their sex (female/male). In addition, responses to the
question “What was your relationship to the victim?” were coded and collapsed
into three categories: the offender was a parent or guardian of the victim, the
offender was a person known to the victim (babysitter, friend of the child’s parent,
etc.), or the offender had no known relationship with the victim (a stranger). The
question “Was another person involved as a perpetrator of the offense?” yielded
yes or no responses. Participants also were asked how many victims they had and
how many times they committed their offense with the same victim.

Childhood adversity
This study used the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale (Felitti et al.,
1998) to assess four indicators of childhood trauma. The ACE is a 10-item
measure used to examine the exposure to childhood abuse (α = .777). This
instrument results in an overall score (from 0 to 10) and two subscores: abuse
(from 0 to 6) (α = .774) and household dysfunction (from 0 to 4) (α = .549). A
higher score is interpreted as more experiences with abuse and dysfunction in
childhood. In light of evidence that individuals who sexually offend likely have
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 663

been victims of sexual abuse themselves (Jespersen et al., 2009), one yes/no item
from the ACE was assessed individually: “Did an adult or person at least five
years older than you ever touch or fondle you or have you touch his or her body
in a sexual way? OR ever try to or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal sex
with you?”

Adult violent victimization and perpetration

This study used the shortened version of the Conflict Tactics Inventory (CTI)
(Straus, 1979; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) to measure
participants’ adult experiences of victimization and perpetration with intimate
partners and non-intimate others. A total of 17 questions are included in the
standardized measure. All items ask: “Please tell us if you have ever been involved
in the following acts,” with acts assessing severe physical abuse, intimidation,
sexual abuse, and harassment. Participants were asked to check four different
boxes, which assessed if they were the victim or perpetrator of abuse by or against
and intimate partner and/or a non-intimate other. Responses were dichotomized
into either no (0) or yes (1), and scale scores were summed to indicate the total
number of items experienced in each subscale. Four scores resulted from this
measure: (a) violent victimization by an intimate partner, b) violent victimization
by someone other than an intimate partner, (c) violent perpetration against an
intimate partner, and (d) violent perpetration against someone other than an
intimate partner. Scores ranged from 0 to 17, with a higher score meaning more
experience of violent behaviors. These measures had good reliability scores:
victimization by intimate partner (α = .933), victimization by non-intimate
other (α = .794), perpetration on intimate partner (α = .830), and perpetration
on non-intimate other (α = .784).

Behavioral health indicators

This study used two measures to assess participants’ behavioral health. First, the
K6+ nonspecific distress scale (Kessler et al., 2002, 2003) is a 6-item brief mental
health screening tool used to determine the if an individual’s symptoms are
indicative of a severe mental illness. Respondents are asked how often in the
past 4 weeks they experienced feelings of nervousness, hopelessness, restlessness,
depression, worthlessness, and feeling as though everything has been an effort. For
each question, participants chose from a Likert scale ranging between 0 (none of
the time) and 4 (all of the time). Scores are summed into an overall score ranging
from 0 to 24 (α = .91). Incarcerated individuals with a score of 9 or above meet the
criteria for a severe mental illness (Kubiak, Beeble, & Bybee, 2009, 2010).
Second, substance use was assessed by asking participants if they were
required to take part in a substance abuse program during the incarceration
for which they were currently serving time. Upon entry into the prison, all
individuals are assessed using the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory
(SASSI) (Lazowski, Miller, Boye, & Miller, 1998). This measure has 93 items and
664 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

8 subscales. Any individual with a score indicating probability of substance

dependence is required to enter treatment. Therefore, requirement to participate
in treatment was used as a proxy for substance abuse history.

Sexual deviation indicators

This study used two measures to assess participants’ sexual deviation. First, the
Child Molester Scale (CMS; McGrath, Cann, & Konopasky, 1998) was used to
assess participants’ cognitive distortions. There are 10 questions, including: “My
relationship with my son or daughter (or other child) is strengthened by the fact
that we have sex together,” and “Sometime in the future, our society will realize
that sex between a child and an adult is all right.” Participants could select their
level of agreement with statements, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly
disagree). Scores were summed, with a possible range of scores between 10 and 50.
Higher scores indicate lower levels of cognitive distortions. The scale showed good
(α = .900) internal consistency.
Second, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test (SAST-R; Carnes, 1983) was used
to measure sexual deviance. This measure included 22 items, with questions such
as: “Have you ever sought help for sexual behavior you did not like?” and “I have
engaged in unsafe or ‘risky’ sex even though I knew it could cause me harm.”
Participants could choose either a yes (1) or no (0) response for each item. The
scores were summed, with a possible range in scores from 0 to 22 (α = .860). A
higher score indicates a greater propensity for sexual deviance.

Social desirability
This study used the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (CM; Johnson
& Fendrich, 2003) to measure the tendency of individuals to project favorable
images of themselves when interacting in social situations. Ten items were
included in this study (e.g., “No matter who I am talking to, I am always a good
listener”). Participants could choose from a score of 1 (disagree) to 3 (agree).
Scores were summed and could range from 10 to 30, with higher scores
indicating that an individual overreports socially desirable information and
underreports socially undesirable information. The Cronbach Alpha score did
not show good internal consistency for this subsample (α = .503).

Open-ended items
Finally, to contextualize the results of our quantitative analysis, we examined
participants’ written responses to two open-ended survey items regarding the
offense for which they were incarcerated: (a) “Describe the offense for which
you were convicted,” and (b) “Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about
the offense or this survey that would increase our understanding of the
situation?”
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 665

Analyses
Quantitative data were analyzed using bivariate analyses. Chi-square and inde-
pendent samples t tests tested for differences in demographic characteristics,
victim and offense characteristics, childhood adversity, adult violent victimiza-
tion and perpetration, and behavioral health and sexual deviation measures
between women and men incarcerated for a sex offense against a child. In
addition, two hierarchical logistic regression models were run to further inves-
tigate significant bivariate findings that existed between women and men.
Qualitative data were analyzed by the first and second authors. The first
author coded participants’ responses for primary themes using an open coding
scheme (Strauss, 1987), then grouped the emergent themes into three categories.
The first author then gave the list of themes and categories to the second author,
who then used targeted coding to apply the themes identified by the first author
to the narratives. Any discrepancies in coding, which were few, were reconciled
by the first and second authors. The themes and categories were then analyzed to
assess similarity and differences between women’s and men’s responses.
The first category reflects participants’ statements about their culpability in the
offense—specifically, whether they admitted involvement or denied involvement in
the offense for which they are incarcerated. When participants simply offered a
legal description of the offense or provided only a charge category (e.g., “criminal
sexual conduct second degree”), we assigned neither code. We assigned an “admit
involvement” code when participants placed themselves in the narrative through
use of the first person (e.g., “I had sex with my 12-year-old cousin and she had a
baby”) and/or offered statements of remorse or responsibility (e.g., “I am truly
sorry for my actions,” and “I wish I could take back what I did”). We assigned a
“deny involvement” code when participants explicitly maintained their innocence
(e.g., “I was falsely accused,” and “I am not guilty and have done [time served] for
nothing”).
The second category reflects participants’ description of the offense—specifi-
cally, whether their narratives included sexually charged verbs like touch, fondle, or
kiss or a reference to their own sexual arousal during the offense. These
unprompted admissions of sexual gratification most often included explicit refer-
ences to masturbating (and its euphemisms) during the offense. An additional
code in this category reflected whether participants mentioned use of force during
the offense. It is important to note that this code captures participants’ indications
of physically aggressive behavior through use of words like “forcefully” or
“roughly” to describe their sexual behavior and does not necessarily indicate
weapon use or physical restraint of victims.
The third category reflects participants’ self-identified reasons for committing
the offense. This category included participants’ own intimate partner abuse (IPA)
victimization, during which an intimate partner forced them to participate in the
offense, including by lethal threat. Examples of this code include statements like, “I
666 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

had sex with [the victim] or it was my life,” and “[My] husband . . . forced my
children to perform oral sex on me. I was unable to tell anyone because of his
promises to kill me and them.” It is important to note here that in some cases these
lethal threats were made explicit: “He drove me up north and showed me where he
was going to kill me and bury me if I told.” A related code captures whether
participants mentioned their own CSA victimization in explaining their offense
perpetration, making statements like, “I was molested as a child, and if I had
received therapy I believe I would not have turned on my daughter,” and “I was on
drugs and had issues from my own sex abuse as a child.” As this later passage
indicates, another code in this category reflects participants’ indications that they
were drunk or high during the offense. A final code in this category captures
participants’ economic motive for participating in the offense, such as by explain-
ing, “I was running a whore house with underage minors to get money.”

Results
This study included a sample of 51 women and men convicted of a sex offense
with a victim under the age of 13. The majority of participants were white
(74.0%, n = 37). The average age at the time of the offense was 30.6 years old
(SD = 9.36). Two out of three participants (68.0%, n = 34) had a maximum
education level of high school, GED or lower. Women in the subsample closely
represented the total population of women incarcerated for a sex crime in the
state in terms of age at offense (30.6 versus 30.7 years old, respectively) and
percent white (72.0% versus 79.6%). Men in the subsample had a slightly lower
age at offense (30.5 versus 32.2 years old) and a greater percentage were white
(76.0% versus 65.1%) compared to the total population of men incarcerated for a
sex crime in the state. No differences were found between the women and men
in the subsample by race/ethnicity, age at the time of the offense, or education
level (see Table 1).

Quantitative results
Some victim and offense characteristics differed between women and men.
Overall, the majority of victims in the total sample were female (74.5%, n = 38).
However, victim sex was significantly different for women and men in the sample
(χ2(1) = 6.148, p < .05), with men being more likely to have a female victim (88.0%,
n = 21) and women being equally likely to have a female victim (54.5%, n = 12) and
a male victim (45.5%, n = 10). The average age of the victims in the total sample was
8.0 years old (SD = 2.9) and did not differ by offender sex. The victim-offender
relationship was statistically different for women compared to men (χ2(2) = 10.632,
p < .01), with women being more likely than men to have no known relationship to
the victim (n = 5, 20%). In addition, a larger proportion of women (56.0%, n = 15)
than men (36.0%, n = 9) reported that they were the parent or guardian of the
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 667

Table 1. Demographic, Victim, and Offense Characteristics, Childhood Adversity, Adult Violent
Victimization and Perpetration, and Behavioral Health and Sexual Deviation Indicators.
Total Sample (N = 51) Women (n = 26) Men (n = 25)
Offender Demographic Characteristics
Race/ethnicity
White 37 (74.0%) 18 (72.0%) 19 (76.0%)
Non-white 13 (26.0%) 7 (28.0%) 6 (24.0%)
Age at offense (M/SD) 30.6 (9.4) 30.6 (8.0) 30.5 (10.6)
Education
High school/GED/Less 34 (68.0%) 15 (60.0%) 19 (76.0%)
Some dollege or degree(s) 16 (32.0%) 10 (40.0%) 6 (24.0%)
Victim and Offense Characteristics
Victim sex*
Male 13 (28.3%) 10 (45.5%) 3 (12.5%)
Female 33 (71.7%) 12 (54.5%) 21 (87.5%)
Victim age (M/SD) 8.0 (2.9) 7.7 (3.3) 8.2 (2.3)
Relationship**
Parent or guardian 23 (46.0%) 14 (56.0%) 9 (36.0%)
Other known person 22 (44.0%) 6 (24.0%) 16 (64.0%)
Unknown relationship 5 (10.0%) 5 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Co-offender*** 18 (38.3%) 16 (66.7%) 2 (8.7%)
Number of victims
One victim 32 (62.7%) 14 (53.8%) 18 (72.0%)
Multiple victims 19 (37.3%) 12 (46.2%) 7 (28.0%)
Number of perpetrations
One time 20 (39.2%) 11 (42.3%) 9 (36.0%)
Repeated times 31 (60.8%) 15 (57.7%) 16 (64.0%)
Childhood Adversity
Child sexual abuse history 36 (70.6%) 20 (76.9%) 16 (64.0%)
Overall ACE score (M/SD) 4.8 (2.7) 5.2 (3.1) 4.4 (2.2)
Abuse subscale (M/SD) 3.2 (1.9) 3.6 (2.2) 2.8 (1.6)
Household disruption subscale (M/SD) 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 1.6 (1.1)
Adult Violent Victimization and Perpetration
Adult violent victimization
IPA victimization*** 3.8 (4.9) 6.7 (5.4) 0.9 (1.9)
Non-IPA victimization 1.5 (2.4) 1.0 (2.0) 2.0 (2.6)
Adult violent perpetration
IPA perpetration 0.9 (1.9) 0.7 (2.0) 1.0 (1.8)
Non-IPA perpetration** 1.3 (2.2) 0.5 (1.2) 2.2 (2.6)
Behavioral Health and Sexual Deviation Indicators
Serious mental illness score^ 20 (44.4%) 12 (60.0%) 8 (32.0%)
Substance abuse* 28 (65.1%) 9 (47.4%) 19 (79.2%)
Cognitive distortion 44.1 (7.1) 45.3 (5.8) 42.9 (8.3)
Sexual deviance scale*** 9.0 (5.0) 6.4 (5.3) 11.7 (3.0)
* = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001, ^ = p = .060.

victim. Just over one-third of the total sample reported having a co-offender
(38.3%, n = 18). There was a significant difference between women and men
who reported a co-offender (χ2(1) = 16.703, p < .001), with two-thirds of women
(66.7%, n = 16) and less than one-tenth of men (8.7%, n = 2) reporting the presence
of a co-offender. The majority of the total sample had only one victim (62.7%,
n = 32) with perpetrations occurring a repeated number of times (60.8%, n = 31).
Neither number of victims nor number of perpetrations significantly differed
between women and men (see Table 1).
668 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

There were no significant differences in presence or severity of childhood

adversity between women and men. Over two-thirds (70.6%, n = 36) of the
total sample had experienced child sexual abuse, including over two-thirds of
women (76.9%, n = 20) and nearly two-thirds of men (64.0%, n = 16). Overall,
adverse childhood experiences averaged 4.8 forms of abuse (SD = 2.7), with the
abuse subscale averaging 3.2 (SD = 1.9) and the household disruption subscale
averaging 1.7 (SD = 1.2), with women and men reporting similar scores (see
Table 1).
This study also examined participants’ adulthood violent victimization and
perpetration experiences with both intimate partners and non-intimate others.
Adult IPA victimization in the total sample had a mean score of 3.8 (SD = 4.9),
with women experiencing more types of violence (M = 6.7, SD = 5.4) than men
(M = 0.9, SD = 1.9) (t(31.366) = 5.140, p < .001). On average, women (M = 1.0,
SD = 2.0) and men (M = 2.0, SD = 2.6) had similar victimization experiences with
someone other than an intimate partner. Adult IPA perpetration in the total
sample had a mean score of 0.9 (SD = 1.9) acts of violence with no differences by
offender sex. Perpetration of violence toward someone other than an intimate
partner did significantly differ by offender sex (t(34.253) = 2.980, p < .01), with
men perpetrating an average of 2.2 (SD = 2.6) and women perpetrating an average
of 0.5 (SD = 1.2) acts of violence against non-intimate others (see Table 1).
Just under half of the total sample showed symptoms that met the criteria
for a serious mental illness (SMI; n = 20, 44.4%). While not statistically
significant at the .05 level, a near significant difference was found by offender
sex (χ2(1) = 3.528, p = .060), with 60% (n = 12) of women and 32% (n = 8) of
men meeting the criteria for SMI. Almost two-thirds of the total sample met
the criteria for a substance use disorder (65.1%, n = 28), with a smaller
proportion of women having a substance use disorder (47.4%, n = 9) than
men (79.2%, n = 19) (χ2(1) = 4.721, p < .05). The total sample had an overall
low cognitive distortions score of 44.1 (SD = 7.125), with no significant
differences between women (M = 45.3, SD = 5.8) and men (M = 42.9,
SD = 8.3). Sexual deviance scores for the total sample averaged 9.0
(SD = 5.0). Women reported significantly lower rates of sexual deviance
(M = 6.4, SD = 5.3) than men (M = 11.7, SD = 3.0) (t(34.475) = −4.132,
p < .001) (see Table 1).
Use of a self-report measure called for inclusion of a social desirability scale,
which found women (M = 20.8, SD = 3.4) reporting a higher level of impression
management than their male counterparts (M = 18.7, SD = 3.5) (t(48) = −2.139,
p < .05) in overall score. However, significant differences were not found by sex
when the social desirability scale was broken into high, medium, and low levels.
Again, the internal consistency of this measure in this subsample of sex offenders
was poor.
Two hierarchical logistic regressions were run to further test for significant
findings in the bivariate analysis. The first model tested to see whether women
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 669

were more likely to be a parent or guardian of the victim because they reported
having a co-offender. The second model tested to see whether women were
more likely to have a female victim because they reported having a co-offender.
Neither model had good fit indices, thus we were unable to interpret the findings
of these regressions.

Qualitative results
A tally of the qualitative codes suggests differences in the way women (n = 26)
and men (n = 25) characterize the child sex offenses for which they are
incarcerated. Regarding their culpability in the offense, 4 women (15.4%)
admitted involvement and 4 women (15.4%) denied involvement in the offense;
in contrast 9 men (36%) admitted involvement and no men denied involvement.
Regarding their description of the offense, only two women (7.7%) used sexually
charged verbs in describing the offense, and no woman mentioned her own
arousal or use of force. Conversely, 11 men (44%) used sexually charged verbs,
five men (25%) referenced their own sexual arousal, and two men (8%) men-
tioned use of force. Finally, 6 women (23.1%) attributed their participation in the
offense to IPA victimization/lethal threat, 3 women (11.5%) referenced their
own CSA victimization, 2 women (7.7%) referenced being drunk or high during
the offense, and 1 woman (3.8%) indicated an economic motive for perpetration.
In contrast, 1 man each (4%) referenced his own CSA victimization and being
drunk or high during the offense, and no man indicated IPA victimization or
having an economic motive (see Table 2).
When the codes are placed in order of descending frequency, a markedly
different pattern emerges in the narrative responses of women and men. The
most frequently occurring codes among men’s responses involved sexually
charged descriptors such as “touch,” “fondle,” and “kiss” and admissions of
involvement, while the most frequently occurring codes among women’s
responses involved references to IPA victimization or lethal threat and denials of

Table 2. Qualitative Codes.

Women (n = 26) Men (n = 25)
Culpability in Offense
Admit involvement 4 (15.4%) 9 (36.0%)
Deny involvement 4 (15.4%) 0 (0%)
Description of Offense
Mention “touch,” “fondle,” or “kiss” 2 (7.7%) 11 (44.0%)
Mention own arousal 0 (0%) 5 (25.0%)
Mention use of force 0 (0%) 2 (8.0%)
Reason for Committing Offense
Own IPA victimization or lethal threat 6 (23.1%) 0 (0%)
Own CSA victimization 3 (11.5%) 1 (4.0%)
Drunk or high 2 (7.7%) 1 (4.0%)
Economic motive 1 (3.8%) 0 (0%)
670 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

Table 3. Frequency of Codes in Descending Order.

Women (n = 26) Men (n = 25)
Own IPA victimization or lethal threat (6) Mention “touch,” “fondle,” or “kiss” (11)
Admit outright (4) Admit outright (9)
Deny outright (4) Mention own arousal (5)
Own CSA victimization (3) Mention use of force (2)
Mention “touch,” “fondle,” or “kiss” (2) Own CSA victimization (1)
Drunk or high (2) Drunk or high (1)
Economic motive (1)
– –
Mention own arousal (0) Deny outright (0)
Mention use of force (0) Own IPA victimization or lethal threat (0)
Economic motive (0)

involvement in equal numbers. No men denied involvement in the offense,

mentioned IPA victimization or threats (lethal or otherwise), or offered an eco-
nomic motive for participating in the offense; conversely, no woman mentioned
her own arousal or use of force in committing the offense (see Table 3).

Discussion
Although utilizing a small sample, this study affirms women’s and men’s distinct
experiences with CSA perpetration. Consistent with prior research (Gannon &
Rose, 2008; Grayston & DeLuca, 1999; Nathan & Ward, 2001), we find that women
were more likely than men to be the parent or guardian of the victim, although the
women in our sample also were more likely than men to have no known relation-
ship to the victim (a stranger). Like other studies (McLeod, 2015), women in our
sample were equally likely to have female and male victims, unlike men who were
more likely to have female victims. Both our quantitative and qualitative results are
congruent with prior research suggesting that women are particularly likely to
report the presence of a co-offender, especially a male intimate partner (Gannon &
Rose, 2008; Grayston & DeLuca, 1999; Nathan & Ward, 2001). However, our
results did not allow us to determine a relationship between having a co-offender
and women’s CSA perpetration against either female victims or their own children.
Our study also reflects prior research suggesting that men who commit sex crimes
against children are more likely to have substance use disorders than women
(Gannon & Rose, 2008; Miller et al., 2009), although this was primarily a finding
of our quantitative data, as the qualitative data did not establish differences in
women’s and men’s representations of their substance use. Finally, other studies
have found that FSOs are more likely to have mental health issues as a result of their
trauma histories (McLeod, 2015; Miller et al., 2009). While our findings did not
show clear evidence of a significant difference in mental illness, it was trending in
this direction with a higher proportion of women than men meeting the criteria for
severe mental illness.
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 671

In addition, existing research indicates that women who commit CSA tend
not to hold the same cognitive distortions about children and sexual behaviors
as their male counterparts (Gannon et al., 2009) and are rarely diagnosed with
pedophilia (Nathan & Ward, 2001). Somewhat surprisingly, neither women
nor men in our sample scored high on the cognitive distortions measure, and
we found no difference between women and men. That said, our results do
suggest that men were more likely than women to have higher sexual deviance
scores, and the men’s qualitative narratives contained more references to
sexually evocative terms and their own sexual arousal, a reference that did
not appear in any of the women’s narratives. Thus, our results somewhat
support existing research about cognitive distortions and deviant arousal
patterns among women and men who commit CSA.
We also found that men were more likely to perpetrate violence against adults
other than an intimate partner compared to the women in the sample.
Somewhat surprisingly, men were not significantly more likely than women to
perpetrate acts of violence toward their intimate partners. This finding likely is a
function of the measure of adult violence perpetration that we used. The Conflict
Tactics Scale has been critiqued for overestimating gender symmetry in IPA by
not detecting controlling and terroristic behaviors that are more likely to occur
in men’s abuse of their female intimate partners (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998).
Moreover, our qualitative data clearly and strongly indicate that victimization by
an intimate partner is a significant contributor to women’s CSA perpetration.
Several women in our study reported perpetrating CSA only after being threa-
tened with death by an abusive intimate partner, as others researchers have
found (Grayston & DeLuca, 1999).
However, our study diverges from previous research in findings related to
childhood adversity. Whereas other studies have suggested that women who
commit CSA are especially likely to have experienced CSA victimization in
childhood (Hickey et al., 2008; Jespersen et al., 2009; Mathews et al., 1997;
McLeod, 2015), our results do not point to this same conclusion. Both women
and men in our sample reported similar rates of CSA victimization, with 7 out of
10 participants in the total sample having reported inappropriate sexual contact
with someone 5 years older than them when they were a minor child. Likewise,
the narrative data revealed that 3 women and 1 man referenced their own sexual
victimization as children. Although the number of women who referenced CSA
victimization was greater than the number of men, this was not a theme that
emerged particularly strongly among the women’s narratives. Overall, women
and men in this sample experienced a large number of adverse experiences in
childhood with no significant differences between women and men.
One unexpected finding of our qualitative analysis—and one that, to our
knowledge, has not been reported elsewhere in correctional samples—is
women’s denial of involvement in the child sex offense for which they are
incarcerated, a theme that appeared in none of the men’s narratives. One
672 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

possible explanation for these differences is that men but not women in this
sample were engaged in sex offender treatment and so may have been aware that
admission of guilt is a requirement for release from prison. Whatever the reason,
this finding underscores the benefits of utilizing both quantitative and qualita-
tive methods in examining women’s CSA perpetration relative to men’s (Teddlie
& Tashakkori, 2009). In particular, feminist-informed qualitative methodologies
are especially important for research strategies that empower participants from
vulnerable populations (Burgess-Proctor, 2015). The fact that no man in our
sample maintained his innocence suggests that gendered dynamics exist with
respect to women’s and men’s representations of their CSA perpetration.

Limitations
While this study contributes to the small body of literature about women who
commit child sexual abuse, it has limitations that need to be addressed. Similar
to limitations of other studies on this population, our sample was too small to
run advanced statistical analyses. Future studies should attempt to include larger
samples in order to better test for multivariate relationships. Some scholars have
noted that incarcerated sex offenders may not be representative of the overall
population of sex offenders, thereby limiting generalizability of findings based
on correctional samples (Ames & Houston, 1990). Absent treatment-based
samples, though, offender background information typically is not available
from official data outside of carceral settings. Although nationally representative
studies are useful for identifying broad patterns of offending, they are unlikely to
provide information about offender psychometric properties or childhood
experiences that have been shown to differentiate between women’s and men’s
sexual offending. Therefore, implications for therapeutic interventions are less
forthcoming, and our results have more relevance for criminal justice practi-
tioners than therapists.
Most pressingly, our data indicate that a troubling proportion of our female
participants maintained their innocence in the crime for which they are cur-
rently incarcerated. We have no way to verify whether participants’ claims of
innocence are true, but this finding could be the result of social desirability,
especially since women in this sample reported higher social desirability than
men (see also Gannon & Rose, 2008). As with other populations (see Beretvas,
Meyers, & Leite, 2002), the Cronbach alpha showed low internal consistency in
this subsample. Future research should use court or treatment case files to
corroborate participants’ self-report data. However, if participants believed
that maintaining their innocence on a research survey would possibly result in
their conviction being reexamined, it would stand to reason that men would take
advantage of this mechanism as much as women. Because they did not, we are
left with lingering concerns about the claims made by several women in our
sample that they have been inappropriately convicted.
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 673

Implications
Our results support the idea that therapeutic programs designed for men, espe-
cially those aimed at reducing sexual attraction toward children, may have limited
applicability to women. Although we found no difference in cognitive distortion
scores between women and men, arousal was not a code that appeared in any of the
women’s narratives, confirming the results of other studies that find no evidence of
sexual gratification as a motivation for offending among women (see O’Connor,
1987). Other scholars have made similar observations, noting that behavior mod-
ification interventions designed for sexually aggressive male offenders may have
little utility for female offenders, who would be better served by interventions that
address their trauma histories (Mathews et al., 1997). Given the proportion of
women in our sample who reported IPA victimization, our results also support the
need for trauma-informed services for women, as suggested by the feminist path-
ways framework. The high proportion of women who reported perpetrating CSA
under duress by an abusive male intimate partner also raises concerns about the
appropriateness of justice-system responses in these cases. Advocating for reduc-
tions in sentences with a mandate to participate in trauma-informed treatment is
likely a better rehabilitative path for women. However, almost two out of three men
in our sample reported their own prior CSA victimization. In addition to services
that address arousal and sexual deviance, we would be remiss if we did not also
recommend trauma-informed services for men.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest some overlap between female- and male-perpetrated CSA
but also significant differences by offender sex. Overall, we find that in order to
best protect children from sexual abuse, gender-specific and trauma-informed
interventions for offenders are needed. It is our hope that future research will
aid development of treatment interventions that reduce CSA offending and
decrease the long-term exposure of children to sexual victimization by women
and men alike.

Notes
1. While we prefer to discuss individuals in this sample as people first (i.e., “women and men
who commit CSA”), for the sake of brevity we sometimes use the abbreviated terms “female
sex offenders (FSOs)” and “male sex offenders (MSOs)” as a means to distinguish between
the two groups.
2. We selected age 13 because it most closely reflects the stage of prepubescence associated
with a DSM-V pedophilia diagnosis and for which sexual contact by adults is most taboo,
especially for women (Elliott, 1994). However, we also ran our analyses using age 16, the
legal age of consent in the state, and found similar patterns in the results.
3. Data collectors offered to read the survey for respondents who needed assistance.
674 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical standards and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible
committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki
Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for
being included in the study.

Notes on contributors
Amanda Burgess-Proctor received her doctorate of philosophy from the Michigan State
University School of Criminal Justice in East Lansing, Michigan. She is an associate professor
of Criminal Justice at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan.

Erin B. Comartin received her doctorate of philosophy from the Wayne State University’s
School of Social Work in Detroit, Michigan. She is an assistant professor in the School of
Social Work at Wayne State University.
Sheryl P. Kubiak received her doctorate of philosophy in psychology and social work from
the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. She is a professor in the School of Social
Work at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan.

References
Ames, M. A., & Houston, D. A. (1990). Legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19(4), 333–342. doi:10.1007/BF01541928
Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62
(4), 570–589. doi:10.1177/0013164402062004003
Bourke, A., Doherty, S., McBride, O., Morgan, K., & McGee, H. (2014). Female perpetrators
of child sexual abuse: Characteristics of the offender and victim. Psychology, Crime & Law,
20(8), 769–780. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2013.860456
Burgess-Proctor, A. (2015). Methodological and ethical issues in feminist research with
abused women: Reflections on participants’ vulnerability and empowerment. Women’s
Studies International Forum, 48(1), 124–134. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2014.10.014
Carnes, P. (1983). Sexual addiction screening test-revised (SAST-R). Foundry Clinical Group.
Retrieved from http://foundryclinicalgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SAST-R.pdf.
Cortoni, F., Hanson, K., & Coache, M. (2010). The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders
are low: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(4), 387–401.
Daly, K. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and
problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2,
11–52.
Davis, L. (2014). Paraphillic disorsders in women: Mental illness or a reaction to untreated
trauma?. In N. L. Ishibashi (Ed.), Arguing with the DSM-5: Reflections from the perspective
 JOURNAL OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 675

of social work (pp. 29–39). Chicago, IL: self-published on lulu.com. https://www.amazon.

com/Arguing-Dsm-5-Nora-Ishibashi/dp/1312447516
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in
intimate heterosexual relationships: A critique of the conflict tactics scales. VAWnet:
National Online Resource Center for Violence Against Women,National Resource
Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://vawnet.org/material/measuring-
extent-woman-abuse-intimate-heterosexual-relationships-critique-conflict-tactics
Denov, M. (2004). The long-term effects of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators: A
qualitative study of male and female victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(10),
1137–1156. doi:10.1177/0886260504269093
Elliott, M. (1994). Female sexual abuse of children: “The ultimate taboo.” Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine, 87, 691–694.
Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male
and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162. doi:10.1177/1557085111430214
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., . . .
Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of
the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)
00017-8
Gannon, T., & Rose, M. (2008). Female child sexual offenders: Towards integrating theory
and practice. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 13, 442–461. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.07.002
Gannon, T. A., Rose, M. R., & Williams, S. E. (2009). Do female child molesters implicitly
associate children and sex? A preliminary investigation. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15(1),
55–61. doi:10.1080/13552600802452559
Grayston, A. D., & DeLuca, R. V. (1999). Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: A review
of the clinical and empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4(1), 93–106.
doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00014-7
Hickey, N., McCrory, E., Farmer, E., & Vizard, E. (2008). Comparing the developmental and
behavioural characteristics of female and male juveniles who present with sexually abusive
behaviour. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 14(3), 241–252. doi:10.1080/13552600802389793
Jespersen, A., Lalumiere, M., & Seto, M. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex
offenders and non-sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 179–192.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.004
Johnson, T. P., & Fendrich, M. (2003). A validation of the Crowne-Marlowe social desirability
scale. 2002 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 1661–1666).
Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L. T., . . .
Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and
trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976.
doi:10.1017/S0033291702006074
Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., . . . Zaslavsky,
A. M. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 60, 184–189. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184
Kubiak, S. P., Beeble, M. L., & Bybee, D. (2009). Using the K6 to assess the mental health of jailed
women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 296–313. doi:10.1080/10509670902849038
Kubiak, S. P., Beeble, M. L., & Bybee, D. (2010). Testing the validity of the K6 in detecting
major depression and PTSD among jailed women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1),
64–80. doi:10.1177/0093854809348139
676 A. BURGESS-PROCTOR ET AL.

Lazowski, L., Miller, F., Boye, M., & Miller, G. (1998). Efficacy of the Substance Abuse Subtle
Screening Inventory-3 (SASSI-3) in identifying substance dependence disorders in clinical
settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71(1), 114–128. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7101_8
Mathews, R., Hunter, J. A., & Vuz, J. (1997). Juvenile female sexual offenders: Clinical
characteristics and treatment issues. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
9, 187−199.
McDaniels-Wilson, C., & Belknap, J. (2009). The extensive sexual violation and sexual abuse
histories of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, 14(10), 1090–1127. doi:10.1177/
1077801208323160
McGrath, M., Cann, S., & Konopasky, R. (1998). New measures of defensiveness, empathy
and cognitive distortions for sexual offenders against children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 10(1), 25–36.
McLeod, D. (2015). Female offenders in child sexual abuse cases: A national picture. Journal
of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(1), 97–114. doi:10.1080/10538712.2015.978925
Miller, H., Turner, K., & Henderson, C. (2009). Psychopathology of sex offenders: A com-
parison of males and females using latent profile analysis. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36
(8), 778–792. doi:10.1177/0093854809336400
Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2001). Females who sexually abuse children: Assessment and
treatment issues. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 8(1), 44–55. doi:10.1080/
13218710109525003
Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex offenders: Clinical and demographic features. The
Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8, 5–21. doi:10.1080/13552600208413329
O’Connor, A. A. (1987). Female sex offenders. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 615–620.
doi:10.1192/bjp.150.5.615
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT)
scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88. doi:10.2307/351733
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict
tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family
Issues, 17(3), 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Vandiver, D., & Walker, J. (2002). Female sex offenders: An overview and analysis of 40 cases.
Criminal Justice Review, 27, 284–300. doi:10.1177/073401680202700205
Vandiver, D. M., & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of registered
female sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(2), 121–137.
Williams, K., & Bierie, D. (2015). An incident-based comparison of female and male sexual
offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(3), 235–257. doi:10.1177/
1079063214544333
Copyright of Journal of Child Sexual Abuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.