Journal of Child Sexual Abuse

ISSN: 1053-8712 (Print) 1547-0679 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcsa20

An Exploratory Analysis of Executive Functioning

for Female Sexual Offenders: A Comparison of
Characteristics Across Offense Typologies

Dawn M. Pflugradt & Bradley P. Allen

To cite this article: Dawn M. Pflugradt & Bradley P. Allen (2010) An Exploratory Analysis
of Executive Functioning for Female Sexual Offenders: A Comparison of Characteristics
Across Offense Typologies, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19:4, 434-449, DOI:
10.1080/10538712.2010.495701

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2010.495701

Published online: 28 Jul 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1025

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcsa20
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19:434–449, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1053-8712 print/1547-0679 online
DOI: 10.1080/10538712.2010.495701

RESEARCH ON SEXUAL OFFENDERS

An Exploratory Analysis of Executive

Functioning for Female Sexual Offenders:
A Comparison of Characteristics Across
Offense Typologies

DAWN M. PFLUGRADT and BRADLEY P. ALLEN

Taycheedah Correctional Institution, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA

This study examined the association between female sexual offend-

ing behavioral patterns, as delineated by Sandler and Freeman’s
(2007) typologies, and executive functioning. The sample included
all referrals for sexual offender assessments within a women’s
maximum/medium security prison between January 2009 and
October 2009. Each subject was administered the Stroop (Golden
& Freshwater, 2002) and Trail Making Test (Reitan, 2004) and
were assigned to a typological category. Nonparametric analy-
ses were conducted to determine if there was an association
between typology and performance on neuropsychological tests.
Results yielded no significant associations between test scores
and typological category. Subjects displayed average capacities
for a subset of executive functions, suggesting that the mecha-
nisms for sexually offending behavior in females may differ from
males.

KEYWORDS female sex offenders, neuropsychological

functioning

Although public awareness of female perpetrators of sex crimes has

increased in recent years, primarily due to numerous highly publicized

Submitted 14 December 2009; revised 17 March 2010; accepted 23 March 2010.

Address correspondence to Dawn M. Pflugradt, Psychological Services Unit, Taycheedah
Correctional Institution, PO Box 1947, Fond du Lac, WI 54936. E-mail: dawn.pflugradt@
wisconsin.gov

434
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 435

cases, “there is no evidence-based guidance or other consensus about

the most effective approaches to working with them” (Center for Sex
Offender Management, 2007, p. 1). Whereas significant resources have been
committed to studying the assessment and treatment of male sex offenders,
there continues to be a paucity of information regarding female offenders
(Miller, Turner, & Henderson, 2009). Moreover, it is unclear if the findings
regarding male perpetrators are generalizable to female sex offenders (Ford
& Cortoni, 2008). While the authors of this paper recognize that adolescent
female sexual offenders exist, this paper will focus solely on adult female
sexual offenders.
Among the reasons for limited information regarding female sex
offenders is that until recently, there has been an underrecognition of
“female-perpetrated sex offenses” (Center for Sex Offender Management,
2007, p. 1). Although studies have suggested that females, as a group, com-
mit fewer sexual offenses than males, there is also evidence to indicate that
female perpetrators are underidentified. While there has been much discus-
sion as to why females are underecognized in relation to men, perhaps the
most common explanations are related to sociocultural factors associated
with sexual biases and stereotypes (Logan, 2008; Strickland, 2008).

BACKGROUND

A prominent cultural belief about sexual behavior relates to gender role

stereotypes, which depict women as nurturing caregivers who are unlikely
to exhibit aggressive or harmful behaviors (Hislop, 2001). Within this cul-
tural context, it is inconceivable that women, who have traditionally been
responsible for the development and well-being of children, could possibly
engage in sexually harmful and abusive behaviors (Logan, 2008). In actual-
ity, some studies have indicated that sexual abuse by women is most often
perpetrated against young people (Logan, 2008), during the course of their
caregiving activities (Deering & Mellor, 2007; Ferguson & Meehan, 2005).
Sociocultural factors also result in the underreporting of female sexual
offenses by victims. These influences seem to have the greatest impact on
child and adolescent victims who are fearful that if they reported the abuse,
their sexual identity would be questioned (Hislop, 2001). For adolescent
boys assaulted by adult women, there is also a fear of feeling emasculated
and having others question their masculinity. On the other hand, sexual
activity between an adolescent boy and an adult woman has often been
portrayed as an acceptable rite of passage into adulthood (Becker, Hall, &
Stinson, 2001). Given these various misperceptions and contradictory cul-
tural messages, it is believed that a significant number of female perpetrated
sexual assaults are not reported (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007;
Sandler & Freeman, 2007; Strickland, 2008).
436 D. M. Pflugradt and B. P. Allen

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research of female sex offenders has also been impacted by sociocultural

factors in two primary ways (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007).
First, due to cultural differences regarding maternal caregiving behavior
and the wide range of acts considered abusive (Deering & Mellor, 2007),
obtaining a ubiquitous definition of female sexually abusive behaviors is
difficult. Until recently, definitions of female offending behavior were differ-
ent than male perpetrators, and although female offense patterns tend to be
more variable (Deering & Mellor, 2007), they, in theory, should not differ
significantly from those of males (Ford & Cortoni, 2008).
Second, since women have been traditionally viewed as nonviolent
and protectors of children, information about the types and frequencies
of sexually abusive behaviors by females has been incomplete or nonex-
istent (Logan, 2008). Denov (2003) gives examples of this bias, citing Mathis
(1972) who commented that sexual offending among females was so rare
that it was “of little significance” (p. 54). Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and
Glancy (1984) went a step further stating that “pedophilia . . . does not exist
at all in women” (p. 193).
Although the sociocultural influences cited previously continue today,
numerous highly publicized instances of female sexual abuse perpetrated
against children have resulted in increased public demand for research in
this area (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007). Unlike studying male
sex offenders, however, researching female sexual offenses is plagued with
methodological and analytical challenges due to extremely small samples.
That is, it has been estimated that only 1% of the entire sex offender popula-
tion is comprised of female perpetrators (Vandiver & Walker, 2002). In spite
of these limitations, the field of female sex offender assessment and treat-
ment continues to grow and develop as more innovative research paradigms
and methodologies are identified (Deering & Mellor, 2007).
For example, with the development of more refined functional imag-
ining techniques, there has become a renewed interest in the structural
neurology of deviant behavior (Bufkin & Luttrell, 2005). Whereas the
increased availability of functional and structural imaging techniques have
made it possible to explore associations between aggression and impulsivity
and specific regions of the brain (Bufkin & Luttrell, 2005), their application
to sex offender research is still in its infancy (Joyal, Black, & Dassylva, 2007).
Even though a growing body of studies has identified a significant
neurological basis of deviancy for male offenders (Bufkin & Luttrell, 2005),
there is a very limited research for female offenders, especially female sex
offenders (Joyal et al., 2007). Moreover, the limited research that has been
conducted for female sex offenders focusing on neurological characteris-
tics (e.g., such as frontal-temporal lobe dysfunctions) has been inconclusive.
Although empirical studies have yet to establish an association between
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 437

sexual deviance and “pathognomomic” or “putative” brain anomalies, neu-

rological factors are being included in integrated theories of sexual offending
(Joyal et al., 2007; Ward & Beech, 2006).
In one of the most comprehensive studies to date, Joyal and colleagues
(2007) found, based on a comprehensive review of the literature, that (a)
neuropsychological profiles of sex offenders are limited and based on only
a few studies; (b) when neuropsychological deficits are identified, they
usually indicate fronto-temporal anomalies especially at the inferior, basal
area; (c) lower order executive functioning (impulsivity) may play a more
important role in sexual deviance than higher-order executive functioning
(cognitive flexibility); and (d) subtypes of sex offenders should be consid-
ered, as different types of offenders might be associated with different types
of impairments and severity.
Joyal and colleagues (2007) further conducted a pilot study that
examined neurological characteristics of 20 inpatient male sex offenders
in a forensic psychiatric hospital to test the following hypotheses: (a)
fronto-temporal lobe dysfunction would affect sex offenders, (b) more left
hemisphere damage would be observed, and (c) pedophiles would be
more cognitively impaired than adult rapists. After administering a battery
of neuropsychological tests—the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth
Edition (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 1997), Stroop (Golden & Freshwater, 2002),
the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT; Benton & Hamsher,
1989), the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST; Berg, 1948), Trail Making
(Reitan, 2004), and the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure (ROCF; Corwin &
Bylsma, 1993)—they found few statistically significant differences between
sex offenders and the general norms as well as between groups of sex
offenders (i.e., pedophiles and rapists of adults). The significant findings
included: (a) during the Stroop test, pedophiles needed more time to com-
plete the color naming and interference tasks and had more interference
errors, and (b) during the COWAT, sex offenders as a group (there were no
differences between subtypes of offenders) produced less words beginning
with the letter P and the names of animals.
As concluded by Joyal and colleagues (2007), these findings suggest
that male sex offenders tend to exhibit deficits in the areas of verbal skills,
response inhibition, and sustained attention. Additionally, their responses
indicated average or good capacities for set shifting, cognitive flexibility,
and visual-spatial integration. In short, this neuropsychological profile sup-
ports the notion that anterior cerebral or fronto-temporal anomalies are
more likely to be found than posterior or parieto-occipital dysfunction.
Furthermore, these findings suggest that basal inferior fronto-temporal neu-
ral circuitry may be more closely involved in sexual deviancy than dorsal,
superior cerebral areas.
As acknowledged by Joyal and colleagues (2007), their study was
consistent with other research that identified the well-known divergence
438 D. M. Pflugradt and B. P. Allen

of neuropsychological findings, which most reflects the heterogeneity of

sex offenders as a group. For example, they point out that their research
identified that the number and severity of cognitive deficits were larger
for pedophiles as compared to rapists of adults. As they suggested, fur-
ther research should examine the clinical usefulness of subgroupings for sex
offenders to possibly identity specific neurological characteristics that would
assist with diagnostic and treatment considerations. In contrast to the limited
studies regarding the neurological functioning of sex offenders, numer-
ous researchers have also examined offense typologies or homogenous
groupings of offense characterisitcs for female sex offenders.
Although early typologies were significantly limited due to small sample
size and selection bias, advancements in computer technology have allowed
for the creation and analysis of large pools of information, in turn mak-
ing it possible to identify much larger samples (Bufkin & Luttrell, 2005).
Consequently, with larger samples, recent typologies have provided more
behavioral and demographic characteristics differentiating female sexual
offending (Bickley & Beech, 2001). Moreover, the use of typologies or clas-
sification schemes has provided insight into the differences between female
and male offenders, offering suggestions on direct treatment approaches and
strategies (Davin, Hislop, & Dunbar, 1999).
Among the first researchers to study categorical traits of female sex
offenders based on a large sample of both incarcerated and nonincarcerated
subjects were Vandiver and Kercher (2004), who theorized that typologies
could describe the cause of the offending behavior as well as the pro-
cess associated with it. They further hypothesized that distinct categories
of female sex offenders could be identified and that they would indicate
a much “broader range of motivation” for sexual offending than identified
in previous studies. By utilizing a sample of 471 female sex offenders from
the Texas Department of Public Safety, they used hierarchical log linear
modeling and cluster analysis to identify six types of female sex offend-
ers based on demographic information, victim characteristics, and criminal
histories: (a) heterosexual nurturers, (b) noncriminal homosexual offenders,
(c) female sexual predators, (d) young adult child exploiters, (e) homosex-
ual criminals, and (f) aggressive homosexual offenders. In addition to the
categories, Vandiver and Kercher (2004) concluded that the indicators of
motivation for sexually offending go beyond what was previously stated
in the literature. They suggested that other possible motivations should be
added to those already identified: desire for intimacy, economic gain, and
domestic violence.
More recently Sandler and Freeman (2007) attempted to replicate
Vandiver and Kercher’s (2004) research by studying 390 registered female
sex offenders in the state of New York. Although their samples were
similar in regard to demographic variables, the results of the hierarchal
loglinear modeling resulted in six distinct categories substantially different
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 439

from those identified by Vandiver and Kercher. Their categories included

criminally limited hebephiles, criminally prone hebephiles, young adult child
molesters, high-risk chronic offenders, older nonhabitual offenders, and
homosexual child molesters.
The largest cluster was criminally limited hebephiles (n = 158) who
were similar to Vandiver and Kercher’s (2004) heterosexual nurturers with
one main exception: only 70% of these offenders targeted male victims. The
offenders in this category tended to be older (mean age of 32.6 years),
targeted early adolescent victims (mean age of 13.8 years), and had a low
rearrest rate (9%). Other characteristics of this typology included low rate of
incarceration (11%), few drug arrests (2%), few supervision violations (4%),
few total arrests (average 2.4), few arrests prior to sex offender registration
(average 1.3), and the age difference between victim and offender was 18.8
years on average.
Their second cluster or typology, criminally prone hebephiles
(n = 105), differed from the criminally limited hebephiles insofar as these
offenders were slightly younger (mean age 29.1 years) and the victim–
offender age difference was smaller (mean age 14.8 years). They also
differed significantly in all criminal history variables, including higher rates
for rearrest (53%), number of incarceration terms (52%), drug arrests (18%),
supervision violations (42%), total arrests (9.2 on average), and arrests prior
to sex offender registration (4.9 average). Additionally, unlike Vandiver and
Kercher’s (2004) typology, these offenders targeted males 66% of the time.
The third cluster was young adult child molesters (n = 27) and was
similar to Vandiver and Kercher’s (2004) young adult exploiters insofar as
they included the youngest offender (average age of 28.2 years), had the
youngest average victim age (4.1 years), and had the second lowest num-
ber of total arrests (2.3 on average). As compared to Sandler and Freeman’s
(2007) other typologies, these offenders most closely resembled the crimi-
nally limited hebephiles with low rates of drug arrests (7%), low arrest rates
prior to sex offender registration (1.3 on average), and targeting male victims
about half the time (48%). They differed by targeting younger victims, hav-
ing a greater victim–offender age difference (24.1 years), and having more
incarceration terms (33%).
The fourth typology, high-risk chronic offenders (n = 25), had the high-
est averages on the criminal history variables with highest total arrests (15.4
on average), arrests prior to sex offender registration (7.2 on average), rear-
rests (76%), drug arrests (32%), incarceration terms (72%), and supervision
violations (64%). The average age of these offenders was 30.9 years, and
they were more likely to target non-White female victims (56%). The aver-
age victim age was 5.4 years with an average victim–offender age difference
of 25.4 years.
The subjects included in the fifth grouping, the older nonhabitual
offenders (n = 20), tended to have little or no criminality apart from their
440 D. M. Pflugradt and B. P. Allen

registration offense with an average of 2 arrests. They also had the lowest
average arrests prior to registration with no rearrests, drug arrests, or super-
vision violations. The average age of this group was 51.1 years, and they
targeted victims with an average age of 12.2 years, resulting in a victim–
offender age difference of 38.9 years. As noted, however, 35% served at least
one incarceration term, which may be related to the large victim–offender
age difference. Interestingly, Sandler and Freeman (2007) suggested that
offenders in this cluster may be in need of less rehabilitation and monitoring
services as compared to other offenders.
The last typology identified by Sandler and Freeman (2007) was homo-
sexual child molesters (n = 11). This group almost exclusively targeted
female victims (91%) and was very similar to the older nonhabitual offenders
in regard to criminal history variables. They had low rates of rearrest (18%),
low rates of supervision violations (18%), and high rates of incarceration
terms (36%). These offenders differed from the older nonhabitual offenders
with a lower average age (44.2 years), younger victims (average 5.3 years),
more arrests (3.6 on average), number of arrests prior to registration (2.3
average), and more female victims.
In summary, Sandler and Freeman (2007) concluded that their findings
were similar to Vandiver and Kercher’s (2004) insofar as both schemes indi-
cated that the average female sex offender is in her early 30s and targets
victims slightly less than 12 years of age. The main significant difference
between the two studies was that Vandiver and Kercher found that 47% of
the offenders targeted female victims as compared to Sandler and Freeman,
who found that 34% victimized females. They went on to conclude that their
findings were consistent with the current literature, which found that gener-
ally, female sex offenders don’t target one specific gender (Denov, 2004).
Whereas the identification of offender typologies has been helpful
in regard to the assessment of risk and development of more individual-
ized, targeted treatment approaches, they have provided limited information
in regard to specific etiologies of sexual deviance (Vandiver & Kercher,
2004). That is, the current research regarding the different typologies of sex
offenders identifies risk factors such as low self-esteem, self-injury/suicide
attempts, victimization, employment difficulties, low educational attainment,
difficulties in intimate relationships, antisocial peers/attitudes, mental health
issues, and substance abuse (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007).
Distinct etiologies of female sexual deviance, however, remain unknown
(Logan, 2008).
The following exploratory study will focus on the neuropsychological
characteristics of female sex offenders to determine if there are differences
between offender typologies. Specifically, it will examine whether or not
there are differences in frontal temporal lobe functioning (a) across typolo-
gies of female sexual offenders and (b) between female sex offenders
and normative samples. It is hypothesized that if there are differences in
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 441

test results across typological categories, then an argument may be sup-

ported that different areas of neurological/neuropsychological functioning
are associated with differing sexually deviant behavioral patterns for female
offenders.

METHOD
Participants
Participants for this study were 35 incarcerated female sexual offenders. The
women ranged in age from 18 to 51 years. The mean age for study partici-
pants was 32.5 years (see Table 1 for demographic information). The sample
included all sex offenders referred for a Sexual Offender Assessment dur-
ing intake into the institution between January 2009 and October 2009. All
inmates referred for an assessment between the previously mentioned dates
were given the opportunity to participate in this study. Additional demo-
graphic data was collected by reviewing the inmate’s file, completing the
Sexual Offender Assessment Report (SOAR), and administering the Stroop
(Golden & Freshwater, 2002) and Trail Making Test (Reitan, 2004).

Instruments
After the consent process, the women were asked to complete two tasks.
First, they were given the Trail Making Test (Reitan, 2004). This test measured
the women’s cognitive flexibility and ability to shift tasks/sets (a subset of
executive functioning). The Trail Making Test was scored using norms by
Heaton, Walden-Miller, Taylor, and Grant (2004). They were then given the
Stroop test (Golden & Freshwater, 2002). The Stroop test is a psychological
test of attentional vitality and flexibility. This test measured their ability to
inhibit responses and their impulsivity. At a basic level, the Stroop assesses
the ability of the inmate to sort information from her environment and to
selectively react to the information.

Analysis
The first stage of the analysis was to assign each subject to her respec-
tive typological category as delineated by Sandler and Freeman (2007). The
authors categorized the subjects independently and then met to review how
closely their results matched. For those subjects whom the authors differed
on, the authors provided the rationale for their decisions, and a consensus
was reached as to which category best would describe those particular sub-
jects. An interrater reliability percentage was calculated and the results will
be discussed.
 TABLE 1 Characteristics of Subjects by Offense Typology (N = 35)

Criminally Criminally Young adult High risk Older

limited prone child chronic nonhabitual Homosexual
hebephiles hebephiles molesters offenders offenders child molesters
Variable n=6 n=8 n=4 n=9 n=4 n=4 Total n = 35

M age in years (SD) 29.67 (3.14) 25.25 (1.98) 34.75 (6.5) 32.34 (11.08) 42.25 (4.99) 39.25 (14.57) 32.46 (9.31)
Race:
Caucasian 6 6 4 5 3 3 27
African American 0 2 0 4 1 1 8
Age of Victim:

442
0–12 years 1 0 2 3 0 2 8
13–18 years 5 8 2 3 1 2 21
18+ years 0 0 0 3 3 0 6
M education in years 11.33 (.82) 10.0 (1.41) 10.5 (1.29) 11.0 (0.71) 12.75 (0.96) 10.75 (1.26) 10.94 (1.28)
(SD)
M number of adult 1.17 (0.41) 1.6 (1.01) 2.25 (1.26) 1.89 (1.05) 1 (0) 2 (1.41) 1.66 (0.99)
incarcerations (SD)
M number of adult 2.5 (2.1) 3.9 (2.34) 3 (2.16) 4.56 (3.75) 2.25 (1.26) 2 (0.82) 3.34 (2.58)
arrests (SD)
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 443

The second stage involved compiling and reviewing the available

demographic data. Descriptive statistics were obtained for the entire sam-
ple as well as for each individual typology. The data was then reviewed for
congruency with previous studies and for any observable patterns or trends.
A similar process was conducted for the Stroop and Trail Making tests to
compare them to previous studies and normative data and to examine them
for any trends or patterns.
Last, a nonparametric analysis was conducted to test for significant
differences between the Stroop and Trail Making Test scores across the typo-
logical categories. A nonparametric test was utilized because, in addition to
a small sample, the parameters and/or distribution of this population are
unknown. Moreover, the subjects were obtained during a specific period of
time not by random selection. Specifically, the T-scores were analyzed using
the Kruskal-Wallis test, described as a non-parametric alternative to the one-
way independent samples ANOVA. Additionally, due to the small sample
size, a median test was used.

RESULTS

Initial assignment to typological categories conducted by the authors, inde-

pendently, yielded a low interrater reliability of about 49% (17/35). One
possible explanation for this poor reliability is that the descriptions of the
typologies offered by Sandler and Freeman (2007) were vague and, conse-
quently, open to enormous subjective interpretations. A second and related
explanation is that the authors seemed to emphasize different characteris-
tics when assigning the subjects to categories. After discussing their differing
perceptions, they reached a consensus to focus primarily on the age of the
offender, the relationship with her victim(s), and the criminal histories.
The demographic data summarized in Table 1 was generally consis-
tent with that reported by Sandler and Freeman (2007) with two exceptions.
First, the number of subjects per category in Sandler and Freeman’s sample
decrease in number from criminally limited hebephiles to the homosex-
ual child molesters. Although this trend is observed in the present sample,
the number of high-risk chronic offenders was larger than expected and
included a relatively large number of offenders with extensive criminal
histories in addition to their sexual offenses. This may be a result of
where the sample was collected (within a medium/maximum security
prison). Consistent with Freeman and Sandler, however, this category also
included the highest number of non-White offenders. A second difference
is that the mean age (34.75 years) of the young adult child molesters
is higher than expected. Freeman and Sandler reported that this group
was the youngest, with a mean age of 28 years and a standard devi-
ation of 5.8. Given the small number of subjects in this category, this
444 D. M. Pflugradt and B. P. Allen

difference isn’t necessarily significant as indicated by a large confidence

interval (95% CI [24.4, 45]). Last, the victim ages of the older nonhabit-
ual offenders were higher (i.e., one over 13 years of age and 3 adults)
than reported by Sandler and Freeman (mean = 12.2 years; standard devi-
ation = 3.9). This group was comprised of offenders who did not clearly
fit into other categories, and consequently they were assigned primarily
based on age and relationship to victim. This difference likely reflected the
different variables used in the present study as compared to Sandler and
Freeman.
A Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the demographic variables yielded signif-
icant differences between typologies for age (p = .03) and years of school
(p = .02) which, at first glance, appear to be covariates. Age was actually
a major determinant in category assignment and consequently this result
was expected. Comparing age to years of school, using a Spearman Rank
Order Correlation, revealed that age and years of school were not correlated
(R = 0.042, p = 0.81). Consequently, the most likely interpretation of
years of school differing across typologies was that it was an artifact of a
small sample. All other variables were generally similar without discernible
patterns or trends.
The results of the Stroop and Trail Making Tests are summarized in
Table 2. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis analysis did not yield any sig-
nificant results (see Table 3). That is, the Trails B, Stroop Color-Word, and
Stroop Interference T-scores did not significantly differ across the six typo-
logical categories and thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The results
are also consistent with those obtained by comparing the groups using the
median test. When the data was analyzed qualitatively, there were only
slight or expected variations. One notable result is the variance or standard
deviation of the Trails B times, which had a relatively wide range of 164
(45–209). Almost 30% (n = 10) of the subjects accounted for most of this
variation, with Trails B times ranging from 101–209 seconds. Furthermore,
these subjects were distributed across five of the six typological categories
(2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 0). The other 70% (n = 25) had performances ranging from
45–97 seconds.

DISCUSSION

This study examined if there were any associations between female sexu-
ally offending behavioral patterns, as delineated by Sandler and Freeman’s
(2007) typologies, and performance on selected neuropsychological tests.
The primary hypothesis was that neurological characteristics, such as
impaired or deficit set shifting/cognitive flexibility, response inhibition,
and attentional vitality, would influence or be reflected by the offending
behavioral patterns exhibited by female sex offenders. This approach was
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 445

TABLE 2 Stroop and Trail Making Test Times and T-Scores by Offense Typology (N = 35)

Stroop
Trails B Stroop clinical
typology Trails B Trails B Stroop color-word interference
mean time mean T-scores clinical description T-scores
Offense (SD) (SD) description T-scores mean (SD) mean (SD)

Criminally 96.0 40.0 Average 46.0 Average 53.83

Limited (48.37) (12.71) (10.24) (8.04)
n=6
Criminally 100.25 40.75 Average 47.75 Average 51.13
Prone (47.58) (9.48) (12.63) (8.2)
n=8
Young Adult 92.75 42.0 Average 43.25 Average 48.0
Child (52.68) (12.1) (6.40) (9.34)
Molesters
n=4
High-Risk 88.78 47.44 Average 43.78 Average 47.25
Chronic (39.41) (11.13) (8.26) (4.72)
Offenders
n=9
Older Non- 106.25 37.75 Low 48.5 Average 57.5
Habitual
Offenders (45.65) (7.6) Average (7.19) (12.92)
n=4
Homosexual 79.0 48.25 Average 37.75 Low 42.0
Child (17.66) (7.37) (11.09) Average (12.03)
Molesters
n=4
Total 93.97 43.00 Average 44.86 Average 50.03
n = 35 (41.15) (10.31) (9.68) (9.61)

TABLE 3 Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of T-Scores for Trails and Stroop (N = 35)

Test statistic
Subtest Mean (SD) H (5, N = 35) P value

Trails B T-Score 43.00 (10.31) 4.48 .48

Stroop Color-Word T-Scores 44.86 (9.68) 3.83 .57
Stroop Interference T-Scores 50.03 (9.61) 5.64 .34

developed based on previous research that hypothesized that there are neu-
rological mechanisms or components that not only result in sexually deviant
behaviors but also influence how sexual deviancy is behaviorally expressed.
The present analysis yielded no significant association between selected
neuropsychological tests and behavioral typologies, possibly suggesting that
either a neurological link between sexual deviancy is more subtle than pre-
viously thought and not amendable to current assessments or it does not
exist.
446 D. M. Pflugradt and B. P. Allen

Although there were no significant differences between Trails B and

Stroop T-scores across typologies, there were some interesting qualita-
tive observations. It became obvious to the authors that assignment to
typological categories was going to be a difficult task, which was reflected
in the initial low interrater reliability of about 49% (17/35). Among the
possible explanations for this poor reliability, the one that seemed most
applicable was that the categorical descriptions were vague and, con-
sequently, open to enormous subjective interpretations. The typologies
included in the current literature are based on a few variables, and
researchers/clinicians must make some broad interpretations. If research in
the area of female sex offenders is to employ typologies as a viable depen-
dent variable, categorical characteristics must be more clearly refined and
delineated.
Moreover, even though there were a few variations, as compared to
Sandler and Freeman’s (2007) typology, there were some slight differences
in the demographic data, such as the relative proportion of subjects across
the categories, the mean age of the young adult child molesters being higher
(34.75 years), and the victim ages of older nonhabitual offenders being
higher. Actually, age was a major determinant in category assignment, and
this result was to be expected. The most likely interpretation of years of
school being significantly different across typologies was that this result was
an artifact of a small sample and/or associated with demographic data not
collected during this study. All other variables were generally similar without
discernable patterns or trends.
In regard to a qualitative examination of the Stroop and Trail Making
Test data across typological categories, there were only slight or expected
variations. One notable exception was the variance of the Trails B times,
which had a relatively wide range of 164 (45–209). While examining Trails
B, the authors took into consideration past research that has been con-
ducted utilizing this test. Specifically, Leininger, Gramling, Farrell, Kreutzer,
and Peck (1990) and King, Caine, and Cox (1993) noted large group
variances on Trails B. This large variance may be due to several fac-
tors including a small sample, the Trails B test itself, or the result
of underlying mental health conditions, such as depression, that were
undiagnosed and therefore not controlled for in this study. Despite the
aforementioned possibilities, the subjects’ performance is still notable. As
previously stated, the variance of the Trails B times had a wide range
of 164 (45–209). About 30% (n = 10) of the subjects accounted for
most of this variation, with Trail B times ranging from 101–209 sec-
onds, as compared to the other 70% (n = 25), who exhibited a range
of 45–97 seconds. No pattern emerged and the variance occurred across
typologies.
When looking at neuropsychological test performance on Trails B and
Stroop by the female sexual offenders, results suggest, as a whole, that
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 447

they performed within the average range. This result both confirms and
contradicts Joyal and colleagues’ (2007) findings. In their study, they found
that male sexual offenders performed within the average range on tasks
measuring set shifting and cognitive flexibility, which was also demonstrated
by the female offenders in this study. Contrary to Joyal and colleagues,
who found that some groups of male sexual offenders exhibited deficits in
response inhibition and sustained attention, this study found that the female
sexual offenders (as a group) performed within the average range on these
tasks.
These results, albeit of questionable generalizability due to small
sample size, raise two interesting hypotheses regarding female sexu-
ally offending behaviors. The first is that there is no clearly identifiable
association between female neuropsychological functioning, specifically
executive functioning, and sexually deviant behavioral patterns. If this
is the case, then, unlike some groups of male sex offenders, female
sexual offenses are not due to impulsivity/poor response inhibition, cog-
nitive rigidity, or attentional vitality. Rather, female sexual offending is
planned, intentional, and goal directed. Second, the mechanisms for
sexually offending behavior are different between males and females.
Whereas there is some evidence to suggest that male deviancy is related
to neurological deficits, female offending is related to other factors.
Additional research in this area with a larger sample size will assist
in increasing the overall knowledge base of this complex population
and may help to identify additional factors linked to female offending
behaviors.

REFERENCES

Becker, J., Hall, S., & Stinson, J. (2001). Female sexual offenders: Clinical, legal and
policy issues. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 29–50.
Benton, A. L. & Hamsher, K. (1989). Multilingual aphasia examination. Iowa City,
IA: AJA Associates.
Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective treatment for measuring flexibility in thinking.
Journal of General Psychology, 39, 15–22.
Bickley, J., & Beech, A. R. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to
theory and clinical practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 45, 51–69.
Bufkin, J. L., & Luttrell, V. R. (2005). Neuroimaging studies of aggressive and violent
behavior: Current findings and implications for criminology and criminal justice.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(2), 176–191.
Center for Sex Offender Management. (2007). Female sex offenders.
Washington, DC: U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, National
Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.csom.org/pubs/
female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf
448 D. M. Pflugradt and B. P. Allen

Corwin, J., & Bylsma, F. W. (1993). Commentary on Rey & Osterreith. Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 7, 15–21.
Davin, P. A., Hislop, J. C. R., & Dunbar, T. (1999). Female sexual abusers: Three
views. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.
Deering, R., & Mellor, D. (2007). Female-perpetrated child sex abuse: Definitional
and categorizational analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 14(2), 218–226.
Denov, M. S. (2003). The myth of innocence: Sexual scripts and the recognition of
child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(3),
303–314.
Denov, M. S. (2004). Perspectives on female sex offending: A culture of denial.
Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Ferguson, C. J., & Meehan, D. C. (2005). An analysis of females convicted of sex
crimes in the state of Florida. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(1), 75–89.
Ford, H., & Cortoni, F. (2008). Sexual deviance in females: Assessment and treatment.
In D. R. Laws & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment,
and treatment (2nd ed., pp. 508–523). New York: Guilford Press.
Freund, K., Heasman, G., Racansky, I. G., & Glancy, G. (1984). Pedophilia and
heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 10,
193–200.
Golden, C. J., & Freshwater, S. M. (2002). The Stroop color and word test: A manual
for clinical and experimental uses. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Company.
Heaton, R. K., Walden-Miller, S., Taylor, M. J., & Grant, I. (2004). Revised com-
prehensive norms for an expanded Halstead-Reitan battery: Demographically
adjusted neuropsychological norms for African American and Caucasian
adults. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hislop, J. (2001). Female sex offenders: What therapists, law enforcement, and child
protective services need to know. Ravensdale, WA: Issues Press/Idyll Arbor.
Joyal, C. C., Black, D. N., & Dassylva, B. (2007). The neuropsychology and
neurology of sexual deviance: A review and pilot study. Sex Abuse, 19, 155–173.
King, D. A., Caine, E. D., & Cox, C. (1993). Influence of depression and age on
selected cognitive functions. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 443–453.
Leininger, B. E., Gramling, S. E., Farrell, A. D., Kreutzer, J. S., & Peck, E. A.
(1990). Neuropsychological deficits in symptomatic minor head injury patients
after concussion and mild concussion. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and
Psychiatry, 53, 293–296.
Logan, C. (2008). Sexual deviance in females: Psychopathology and theory. In D. R.
Laws & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and
treatment (2nd ed., pp. 486–507). New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, H. A., Turner, K., & Henderson, C. E. (2009). Psychopathology of sex offend-
ers: A comparison of males and females using latent profile analysis. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36, 778–792.
Reitan, R. M. (2004). Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic
brain damage. In M. D. Lezak, D. B. Howison, & D. W. Loring (Eds.),
Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed., pp. 371–374). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2007). Typology of female sex offenders: A test of
Vandiver and Kercher. Sex Abuse, 19, 73–89.
 Executive Functioning Across Typologies 449

Strickland, S. M. (2008). Female sex offenders: Exploring issues of personal-

ity, trauma, and cognitive distortions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23,
474–489.
Vandiver, D. M., & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of
registered sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual
offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 121–137.
Vandiver, D. M., & Walker, J. T. (2002). Female sex offenders: An overview and
analysis of 40 cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27, 284–300.
Ward, T., & Beech, A. (2006). An integrated theory of sexual offending. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 11, 44–63.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III . San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.

AUTHOR NOTE

Dawn M. Pflugradt, PsyD, is a psychological associate at Taycheedah

Correctional Institution, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
Bradley P. Allen, PhD, is a licensed psychologist at Taycheedah Correctional
Institution, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.