A Critical Review of Objective Personality Inventories With Sex Offenders

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45822352
A Critical Review of Objective

Personality Inventories With Sex
Offenders
Article in Journal of Clinical Psychology · December 2010

Impact Factor: 2.12 · DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20722 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
7 67
2 authors, including:
Robert P Archer
Eastern Virginia Medical School
156 PUBLICATIONS 2,510 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Robert P Archer

Retrieved on: 17 May 2016
A Critical Review of Objective Personality Inventories
With Sex Offenders
m
Karen M. Davis
Marymount University
m
Robert P. Archer
Eastern Virginia Medical School
This review provides a critical analysis of the ability of multiscale

inventories to distinguish between sex offender and nonoffender
control groups, as well as to discriminate sex offenders from other
types of offenders. In addition to expanding upon previous reviews
that examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) with this population (e.g., Levin & Stava, 1987), the
current review included studies that utilized other multiscale
inventories commonly used in forensic practice (i.e., MMPI-2, Millon
Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III [MCMI-III], Personality Assessment
Inventory) and, when possible, provides effect sizes to evaluate group
differences. Based on the review, the various forms of the MMPI and
MCMI are clearly the most widely used instruments in sex offender
populations. The MMPI Pd scale has shown moderate to large effect
sizes when distinguishing between sex offender and nonsex offender
groups, but this relationship may be reflective of antisocial behavior in
general rather than traits specific to sex offenders. Recommendations
to standardize future research classification strategies and more
effectively utilize these instruments when assessing sex offenders
are also provided. & 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol
66:1254–1280, 2010.
Keywords: sex offenders; Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-

tory-2; Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III
In 2008, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimated that
there were 673,989 registered sex offenders in the United States. Given the large
number of identified sex offenders in America, there is a growing concern regarding
the risk management and treatment of this population. Research that examines sex
offenders has employed varied techniques to identify characteristics that may be
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Karen M. Davis, 2807 N. Glebe Road,
Arlington, Virginia 22207; e-mail: karen.davis@marymount.edu
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 66(12), 1254--1280 (2010) & 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20722
A Critical Review of Objective Personality Inventories 1255
associated with an increased risk of sex offending to assist in better understanding

factors that may underlie sexual offending.
Studies have utilized descriptive data regarding demographic and historical
factors, such as victimization during the offender’s own childhood and prior
substance use, to identify static variables that may be associated with a higher risk
for sex offense (e.g., Christopher, Lutz-Zois, & Reinhardt, 2007; Dunsieth et al.,
2004). Research has also examined the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in this
population and demonstrated that a wide variety of diagnoses are associated with
the occurrence of sex offending (e.g., Christopher et al.; Fazel, Hope, O’Donnell, &
Jacoby, 2002). Although these data provide descriptive information regarding
historical traits and diagnoses associated with this population, this research does not
provide insight into underlying characteristics that may be related to sexual
offending.
To examine underlying psychopathological constructs, many researchers have
employed the use of objective self-report personality instruments (Lehne, 2002).
Although some have cautioned about the misuse of these instruments with forensic
populations (e.g., Rogers, 2003), research indicates that traditional clinical
assessment inventories are among the most widely used instruments in the forensic
arena (e.g., Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, & Handel, 2006; Boccaccini &
Brodsky, 1999). A survey conducted by Archer and colleagues identified the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001),
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), and Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III; Millon, 1994) as the three most frequently
used multiscale personality inventories by practitioners who conduct forensic
evaluations with adults. Research with specific forensic populations such as sex
offenders has also frequently used one of these three inventories.
Much of the research regarding psychopathology in sex offenders has examined
whether individuals who sexually offend display a common set of profile
characteristics. Studies have employed many approaches to address this issue, such
as comparing sex offender profiles with individuals with no known sexual offending
history, or comparing sex offenders with other offenders based on offense
characteristics (e.g., Armentrout & Hauer, 1978; Kalichman, 1991). Prior reviews
of the literature have provided descriptive summaries of the studies focused primarily
on the use of the MMPI with sex offender populations (Friedrich, 1988; Levin &
Stava, 1987; Murphy & Peters, 1992). Some reviews focused on as few as two studies
identified as prototypic of this type of research (e.g., Friedrich, 1988), whereas others
focused primarily on literature that examined the use of the MMPI with sex
offenders who victimized children (e.g., Murphy & Peters, 1992).
Levin and Stava (1987) conducted a comprehensive review of 36 articles that
utilized the MMPI to examine personality characteristics of sex offenders who
offended against children and those who offended against adults. Of the studies
reviewed, 22 employed solely the MMPI, whereas the remaining studies utilized the
MMPI and other assessment instruments. As with other reviews (e.g., Friedrich,
1988; Murphy & Peters, 1992), Levin and Stava concluded that sex offenders are a
heterogeneous population, based on MMPI results. The authors further concluded
that no prototypic profile distinguished sex offenders from other groups. Although
these reviews provided descriptive summaries of research procedures and results, the
reviewers did not employ additional statistical analyses, based on the parametric
and/or nonparametric univariate analyses reported in these studies, to examine effect
sizes to evaluate the extent to which the magnitude of the statistically significant
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jclp
1256 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2010
findings were consistent across studies. Additionally, the literature on the use of
objective personality inventories with sex offenders has grown substantially since the
previous reviews were published to include additional studies that utilized the
MMPI-2, as well as the MMPI, and other self-report personality inventories.
Review Scope and Focus

The current review updated and expanded upon previous reviews to include more
recent MMPI literature, as well as literature that utilized other multiscale inventories
that are commonly used in forensic practice, e.g., MCMI-III and PAI. Specifically,
this article critically reviewed the literature to examine whether the assessed
constructs of psychopathology, as measured by objective multiscale inventories
reported in sex offender populations, differ from individuals with no known sexual
offense history, and whether sex offenders’ multiscale inventory results differ from
other offenders based on victim or offense characteristics. In addition to obtaining
the publications cited in previous reviews (e.g., Levin & Stava, 1987), a literature
search for the terms sex offender, personality, and assessment was conducted
between March and May 2010, using the database PsycINFO for the period of 1942
through May 2010. This process resulted in identifying 537 citations. Citations were
subsequently excluded in the current review based on the following criteria: utilized a
measure or assessment strategy other than any of the three personality measures
selected (MMPI-2, MCMI-III, PAI); were unpublished dissertations; or utilized
samples other than those who had been accused of committing an illegal sexual act.
This additional procedure resulted in 881 studies being identified for evaluation.
Studies utilizing all versions of the MMPI and MCMI were included in the review
because various forms of the MMPI and MCMI, while not psychometrically
equivalent, are substantially interrelated in terms of item pool and scale structure.
The coauthors further examined the selected articles to ensure that the research
directly addressed the questions posed by this review. Articles that classified
participants on factors other than those directly related to the research question,
such as level of denial or deviant sexual fantasies evidenced by offenders (e.g.,
Curnoe & Langevin, 2002; Lanyon, 1993), provided only descriptive data regarding
a sample of sex offenders (e.g., Dwyer & Amerson, 1989; Smuckler & Schiebel,
1975), utilized the MMPI to predict treatment success (Geer, Becker, Gray, &
Krauss, 2010), or classified groups based on scale profiles by conducting cluster
analyses (e.g., Anderson, Kunce, & Rich, 1979) were not included in the study.
Although more recent research has utilized the MMPI-2 with sex offenders, these
studies have not addressed topics that are directly relevant to the focus of the current
review and were therefore excluded. For example, recent research has utilized the
MMPI-2 to examine whether educational level impact pedophiles’ profile sex
offenders’ ability to minimize pathology on other instruments (e.g., Grossman,
Wasyliw, Benn, & Gyoerkoe, 2002), or to identify possible factors that are related to
sexual risk (e.g., Coxe & Holmes, 2009).
Eliminating these latter studies resulted in a remaining sample size of 37 studies
that served as the review focus. Of the 37 reviewed, only one study utilized the PAI
(Laulik, Allam, & Sheridan, 2007). One study used the most recent version of the
MCMI-III (Ahlmeyer, Kleinsasser, Stoner, & Retzlaff, 2003), with one using the
MCMI-II (Cohen et al., 2002) and three using the original version of the instrument
1
A list of these 84 articles can be obtained by contacting the senior author, Karen M. Davis.

(Chantry & Craig, 1994; Langevin, Ben-Aron, Wright, Marchese, & Handy, 1988;
Langevin, Lann et al., 1988). The MMPI was clearly the most utilized instrument,
with 32 studies using the original version of the instrument and only one study using
the MMPI-2.
Given the large number of comparisons made in the reviewed articles, it was
decided that effect sizes would be calculated only for findings that achieved
significance in the original study to control for error. If effect sizes are not mentioned
in relation to a particular study, then this omission indicates that the original authors
did not provide the requisite data to compute effect sizes. Magnitude of the effect
sizes in the current review were based on Cohen’s recommendation that 0.20 be
considered a small effect size, 0.50 a medium effect size, and 0.80 and above as a
large effect size based on Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1992). This latter statistic is computed
by utilizing the means and standard deviations for two groups and was the primary
statistic computed in the review. Given the heterogeneity of studies that appear in the
literature, a comprehensive meta-analysis was not possible. However, effect size data
was incorporated into this review as an additional means of evaluating statistical
findings within studies. A table showing the effect sizes calculated for each study can
be obtained by request to the senior author of this article, Karen M. Davis.
Sex Offenders Compared With Nonoffender Control Groups

Table 1 shows all studies that compared objective personality results for sex
offenders with nonoffender control groups. Of the research reviewed, only one study
utilized the PAI to examine psychopathological characteristics in sex offenders.
Laulik et al. (2007) compared PAI profiles of 30 males who had been convicted of
committing an illegal sexual act via the Internet (e.g., downloading indecent images
of children) with the PAI normative sample. Results indicated that Internet sex
offenders scored significantly higher on the following PAI clinical scales: Depression,
Schizophrenia, Borderline Features, Antisocial Features, Suicidal Ideation, and
Stress. And they scored significantly lower than the normative sample on the
following scales: Mania, Aggression, Treatment Rejection, Dominance, and
Warmth. Effect sizes were calculated for 11 scales that resulted in statistically
significant differences between the two groups. Of the 11 effect sizes calculated,
moderate effect sizes were obtained for six scales (Mania 5 0.53, Schizophrenia 5
0.52, Aggression 5 0.53, Suicidal Ideation 5 0.63, Treatment Rejection 5 0.57, and
Dominance 5 0.79). Only two scale comparisons resulted in large effect sizes
(Depression 5 0.95 and Warmth 5 0.98).
Only one study utilized the Millon inventory when comparing sex offenders with a
nonoffender control group. Cohen et al. (2002) utilized the MCMI-II to compare a
group of males diagnosed with pedophilia, heterosexual type, with a group of
demographically similar control participants with no known pedophilic diagnoses.
All pedophilic participants had been convicted of a sexual assault against a
prepubescent child aged 13 years or younger. The pedophiles’ profiles produced
higher scores (above the cutoffs) only for diagnoses on Cluster A (e.g., Schizoid)
scales. Nine scales showed statistically significant differences between the two
groups, with the pedophile group scoring significantly higher than controls on each
of those scales. Of the nine effect sizes calculated, three resulted in moderate effect
sizes (Schizoid 5 0.61, Paranoid 5 0.64, and Histrionic 5 0.69) and six were classified
as large effect sizes (Schizotypal 5 0.91, Borderline 5 1.30, Antisocial 5 0.90,
Avoidant 5 0.94, Passive Aggressive 5 0.81, and Self Defeating 5 0.96).
Table 1
Studies Comparing Male Sex Offenders to Nonoffender Control Groups
1258
Scales that demonstrated significant differences Average effect size for

Reference Year Instrument Comparison groups between groups significant findings
Laulik et al. 2007 PAI 30 Internet offenders Depression, Mania, Schizophrenia, Borderline 0.64
PAI normative sample Features, Antisocial Features, Aggression,
Suicidal Ideation, Stress Stress, Treatment
Rejection, Dominance, and Warmth
Cohen et al. 2002 MCM-II 20 males diagnosed with pedophilia Schizoid, Schizotypal, Paranoid, Histrionic, 0.86
24 demographically matched controls Borderline, Antisocial, Avoidant, Passive
Aggressive, Self-Defeating
Marsh et al. 1955 MMPI 338 sex offenders Significance unknown
317 male college students
Peek and Storms 1956 MMPI 13 hospitalized sex offenders Significance unknown
30 hospitalized nonoffenders
30 psychiatric aides
Langevin et al. 1978 MMPI 14 exhibitionists See text
29 heterosexual pedophiles
Journal of Clinical Psychology

22 homosexual pedophiles
27 incestuous sex offenders
39 homosexual males
31 bisexual males
46 transsexual males
217 males classified as ‘‘multiple deviant’’
54 control participants
DOI: 10.1002/jclp
Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2010
Kirkland and 1982 MMPI 10 incestuous fathers Pd, Pt, and Sc 1.09
Bauer 10 demographically matched nonincestuous fathers
Scott and Stone 1986 MMPI 33 biological incestuous fathers F, Pd, Pa, and Si distinguished biological 0.85
29 stepfather offenders incestuous fathers from matched nonoffenders
62 matched non-offenders
F, D, Pd, Pt, and Sc distinguished stepfather 1.01
perpetrators from matched nonoffenders
Note: PAI 5 Personality Assessment Inventory; MCMI 5 Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory; MMPI 5 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
Average effect size was calculated for scales when significant results were reported in the original study. All effect sizes are simple mean averages.
There were three studies, before the development of the MMPI-2, that compared
mean profiles of sex offenders with nonoffender control participants, utilizing the
MMPI. Some definition of terms when discussing MMPI and MMPI-2 data may be
useful. Clinical range elevations refer to T scores greater than 64 on the MMPI-2 and
greater than 69 on the MMPI. Two-point code types refer to the two highest
clinically significant scales, e.g., a Pd-Ma MMPI code type would refer to a basic
scale pattern in which scales Pd and Ma were the two most elevated scales, both with
T score values greater than 69.
In addition to utilizing MMPI validity and basic clinical scales, some authors
created scales based on MMPI items with which to compare sex offenders. For
example, Marsh, Hilliard, and Liechti (1955) compared 338 sex offenders with 317
male college students on a scale they devised, titled the Sexual Deviation scale.
Results showed that offenders were more likely to endorse scale items in a deviant
direction compared with control participants, but the authors did not indicate
whether this difference was statistically significant.
Peek and Storms (1956) utilized the Sexual Deviation scale, created by Marsh et al.
(1955), to compare 13 inpatient sex offenders whose sexual misconduct ranged from
child molestation, sexual offending against adult females, ‘‘uncontrolled homo-
sexuals,’’ exhibitionists, fetishists, and voyeurs with two nonoffending groups (30
male psychiatric patients and 30 psychiatric aides). As with other research that was
published around the same time frame, Peek and Storms’ classification of
homosexuals as sexually deviant is no longer supported by current standards of
psychopathology. Mean score and overlap comparisons among the three groups
indicated that the various cut scores for the Sexual Deviation scale failed to
adequately discriminate the groups and resulted in a large percentage of the nonsex
offender participants being misclassified as sex offenders.
Langevin, Paitich, Freeman, Mann, and Handy (1978) compared MMPI scale
means with 425 participants who met criteria for one of nine sexual deviancy
categories. In addition to creating groups that continue to be viewed as sexually
deviant by today’s standards (e.g., Heterosexual Pedophile), the authors also used
groups that would no longer be viewed as sexually deviant (e.g., Homosexual). The
control group in this study included 54 adult males with no psychiatric treatment
history and who reported a sexual preference for adult females. Authors provided
descriptions of MMPI profiles associated with each group as well as mean scale
scores and standard deviations for each groups’ validity and clinical scales.
A stepwise discriminant function analysis was conducted to examine the impact
that scale overlap could have on the results as well as a series of chi-squares to
compare the number of T scores above and below 70 with each of the MMPI scales.
Although the authors described differences between all comparison groups, only
comparisons between the control group and sexually deviant groups were examined
further for the purposes of this review. Results suggested that control participants
scored significantly more extroverted than the other comparison groups. When
examining MMPI mean scale scores, the two pedophile groups evidenced the highest
elevations on many clinical scales with the Homosexual Pedophile group displaying
the highest mean scores on the Pd, Mf, and Si scales and the Heterosexual Pedophile
group displaying the highest mean scores on the Hs, D, Pa, Pt, Sc, and Ma scales.
Kirkland and Bauer (1982) compared MMPI profiles of 10 incestuous fathers with
10 matched control group nonincestuous fathers. This study was one of the few to
provide information regarding the variables on which groups were matched, noting
that the groups displayed similar ages, racial breakdowns, education levels, ages of
1260
Table 2
Studies Comparing Male Offenders to Other Types of Offenders
Scales that demonstrated significant differences Average effect size for

Reference Year Instrument Comparison groups between groups significant findings
Langevin, Ben-Aron, 1988 MMPI 13 homicidal sex offenders No significant differences reported
et al. MCMI 13 nonsex homicidal offenders
13 nonhomicidal sex offenders
Langevin, Lang, et al. 1988 MCMI 247 sex offenders Schizoid-Asocial, Avoidant, Dependent- Unable to compute
Comparison Group Submissive, Histrionic-Gregarious,
100 police trainees Narcissistic, Compulsive-Conforming,
39 community volunteers Aggressive-Negativistic, Schizotypal-Schizoid,
33 nonviolent, nonsex offenders Borderline-Cycloid, Paranoid, Anxiety,
Somatoform, Dysthymia, Alcohol Abuse,
Psychotic Thinking, Psychotic Depression,
Psychotic Delusion
Chantry and Craig 1994 MCMI 201 child molesters Passive Aggressive, Anxiety, Dysthymia, Schizoid, 0.32

195 adult rapists Dependent, Borderline, Psychotic Thinking,
205 nonsex, violent offenders Psychotic Depression, Avoidant, Narcissistic,
Compulsive, Paranoid
Ahlmeyer et al. 2003 MCMI-III 223 adult rapists Schizoid, Avoidant, Depressive, Dependent, 0.27
472 child molesters Histrionic, Narcissistic, Antisocial, Self-
7,226 nonsex offenders Defeating, Schizotypal, Anxiety, Somatoform,
Dysthymia, Drug Abuse, PTSD, Thought
DOI: 10.1002/jclp
Disorder, Major Depression

Panton 1958 MMPI 223 white collar offenders Significance unknown
157 convicted of aggravated assault
219 convicted of robbery/burglary
568 convicted of property theft
63 ‘‘aggravated sex’’ group
73 ‘‘sex perverse’’ group as described in the
text
Toobert et al. 1958 MMPI 120 pedophiles 0.97
38 pedophiles in a cross-validation group
50 general nonsex offenders Experimental MMPI Scale developed by the
65 psychiatric Army referrals authors discriminated sex offenders from the
55 comparison college participants comparison groups
Karacan et al. 1974 MMPI 12 convicted rapists No Significant Differences Reported
12 males convicted of non-sex crimes
Rader 1977 MMPI 36 males convicted of exhibitionism F, Hs, D, Hy, Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc 0.58
47 males convicted of rape
46 males convicted of non-sex assault
Forgac and Michaels 1982 MMPI 30 with solely exhibitionistic charges F, Pd, Sc 0.50
54 with various types of criminality
Walters 1987 MMPI 28 offenders against children Mf 0.68
35 offenders against adult females
75 nonsex offenders
Langevin et al. 1990a MMPI 14 exhibitionists See Text
39 homosexual males
31 bisexual males
29 heterosexual pedophiles
22 homosexual pedophiles

27 incestuous sex offenders
217 multiple deviants
27 incestuous offenders
46 transsexual males
Valliant and 1992 MMPI 11 adult rapists No Significant Differences Reported
Antonowicz 8 molesters
DOI: 10.1002/jclp
16 nonsex offenders
Valliant et al. 2000 MMPI 14 adult rapists F, Pd, Pa, Hy 1.04
11 child molesters
20 general offenders
20 nonoffender male college students
Note: MCMI 5 Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory; MMPI 5 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
1261
daughters, and relationship to children. The authors conducted an analysis of

covariance on the initial results to partial out potential effects of elevated F-scale
scores seen in the incestuous fathers group. After conducting this analysis, results
indicated that incestuous fathers scored significantly higher than the matched control
group on the Pd, Pt, and Sc clinical scales. Effect sizes were calculated using the F
statistic from the analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and resulted in large effect sizes
for each of the three scales (Pd 5 1.10; Pt 5 1.12; Sc 5 1.06).
Scott and Stone (1986) compared MMPI profiles of family members in families in
which incest had occurred (fathers or stepfathers, uninvolved mothers, and
daughters who were victims). For the purpose of the review, only the profiles of
the fathers and stepfathers were examined because they were identified as the
individuals who engaged in the sexual offense. The authors compared each of the
father groups with community controls with no known history of sex offending.
Results showed that biological fathers scored significantly higher than their
comparison group on the following scales: F, Pd, Pa, and Si. Results also indicated
that stepfather perpetrators scored significantly higher than their comparison group
on five scales: F, D, Pd, Pt, and Sc. Effect sizes were calculated for the significant
results for each group comparison. The effect sizes for the biological father groups
were slightly lower (F 5 0.69, Pd 5 0.94, Pa 5 0.99, Si 5 0.78) than the effect sizes for
the stepfather perpetrator comparisons (F 5 0.86, D 5 1.01, Pd 5 1.52, Pt 5 0.80,
Sc 5 0.86).
Only seven studies have compared sex offenders with nonoffender control
participants, making it difficult to draw any general findings from the literature.
Although this type of comparison could be useful in examining whether sex
offenders differ significantly from those with no known criminal history, it would be
difficult to determine whether any significant findings between groups reflect
differences in general criminal behavior or in characteristics unique to sexual
offending. Therefore, comparisons between sex offenders and offenders with no
sexual offending history may assist in clarifying whether there are characteristics
measured by objective multiscale inventories that are unique to sex offenders.
Sex Offenders Compared to Other Types of Offenders

All studies in the following section compared various sex offender groups with other
types of offenders to identify whether differences existed between offender types.
Additionally, some studies (e.g., Toobert, Bartelme, & Jones, 1959) also included a
nonoffending control group in addition to the offenders groups. Table 2 shows all
studies that compared the objective personality results for sex offenders with non-ex
criminal offenders.
In the earliest study that utilized the MMPI and MCMI to compare sex offenders
with other types of offenders, Langevin, Ben-Aron et al. (1988) compared nonsexual
homicidal offenders, homicidal sex offenders, and nonhomicidal sex offenders. This
study utilized the MCMI and MMPI, but it indicated that not all of the participants
completed the latter inventory. MCMI scale comparisons between homicidal sex
offenders and nonhomicidal sex offenders resulted in no significant group differences
and most participants showed no significant clinical scale elevations. MMPI results
showed no significant differences among the three groups on the validity and basic
clinical scales, but Pd was frequently elevated in each of the three groups.
Langevin, Lang et al. (1988) utilized the MCMI to compare scale scores of two
clinical groups (sex offenders tested in two separate programs) and a comparison
group (police trainees, community volunteers, and nonviolent nonsex offenders).

Based on the results of preliminary tests, the sex offender subgroups and comparison
subgroups were collapsed into two broad groups, resulting in a heterogeneous group
of sex offenders and heterogeneous comparison group, which included nonviolent
nonsexual offenders. The authors conducted numerous statistical analyses, including
a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) that compared the scale scores for
the collapsed sex offender group with the collapsed comparison group. Results
suggested that the sex offender group had significantly higher scores on all scales
except: Antisocial-Aggressive, Hypomania, and Drug Abuse. However, the authors
observed considerable overlap in score distributions between groups and concluded
that many sex offenders could not be accurately distinguished from comparison
group participants.
Chantry and Craig (1994) grouped offenders as child molesters, adult rapists, or
violent offenders without sexual offense histories. Analyses indicated that child
molesters scored significantly higher than the other two groups on the following
MCMI scales: Passive Aggressive, Anxiety, and Dysthymia, and higher than
nonsexually aggressive felons on Schizoid, Dependant, Borderline, Psychotic
Thinking, and Psychotic Depression. Both sex offender groups scored higher on
the Avoidant scale than nonsex offenders and rapists scored higher on the Passive
Aggressive scale than nonsex offenders. Rapists and nonsexually aggressive felons
scored higher on the Narcissistic, Compulsive, and Paranoid scales than child
molesters. Twenty effect sizes were calculated to further examine the magnitude of
the significant findings described above, with all but one of the effect sizes falling in
the small range. Only the comparison between child molesters to nonsexually
aggressive felons on the Avoidant scale produced a meaningful effect size (0.52).
Ahlmeyer et al. (2003) compared MCMI-III mean scale scores of the personality
disorders and clinical syndrome scales across three groups of offenders: rapists, child
molesters, and nonsex offenders. ANOVAs revealed that 11 of the 14 Personality
Disorder scales and 7 of the 10 Clinical Syndrome Scales resulted in significant
differences between groups. Inmates with sex offense histories scored higher on the
Avoidant, Depressive, Dependent, Schizotypal, and Somatoform scales than nonsex
offenders. Child molesters scored significantly higher than nonsex offenders on the
Schizoid, Self-Defeating, and Anxiety scales and significantly lower than this
comparison group on the Histrionic and Antisocial scales. The Narcissistic,
Dysthymia, and Major Depression scales significantly differentiated each of the
three groups from one another, with the nonsex offenders scoring the highest on the
Narcissistic scale and child molesters scoring the highest on the other two scales.
Nonsex offenders scored significantly higher than child molesters and rapists on the
Drug Abuse scale, but they scored significantly lower than the comparison groups on
the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) scale. Finally, child molesters scored
significantly higher than rapists and nonsex offenders on the Thought Disorder
Scale. Despite statistically significant results, none of the comparisons resulted in
meaningful effect sizes.
Of the studies reviewed, 10 used the MMPI to examine differences between sex
offenders and nonsex offenders, with none of the studies reviewed utilizing the
MMPI-2 to examine potential group differences between these populations. Panton
(1958) compared MMPI mean profiles of incarcerated male offenders who were
classified into one of six groups based on their offense history. Groups were labeled
as white collar (e.g., fraud), aggravated assault (e.g., murder), robbery-burglary,
property theft, aggravated sex (e.g., rape), and sex perverse group (homosexuals).
Results suggested that the groups varied little with regard to their mean MMPI scale
profiles, but that all offender groups produced some significant MMPI mean scale
elevations. The original author conducted 210 t tests to examine scale differences
between the individual groups and noted that of these analyses, only 23 resulted in
significant differences. However, the authors did not provide information regarding
which of the scale comparisons resulted in significant results.
Toobert et al. (1959) created the Experimental MMPI scale and compared male
pedophiles who had offended against children aged 12 years or younger, a cross
validation pedophile group, general prisoners with no sexual offense convictions,
psychiatric referrals from an Army hospital, and a group of male college students
identified by researchers as ‘‘normal.’’ The authors compared group mean scores on
the Experimental MMPI scale and found that the initial male pedophile group and
cross validation pedophile group scored significantly higher than all of the other
groups. The only comparison that did not reach statistical significance was the
comparison between cross validation pedophiles and the psychiatric referrals. Effect
sizes were calculated for the seven significant differences in which pedophiles
produced high mean scores, with two effect sizes falling in the moderate range
(pedophiles to psychiatric referrals 5 0.61; cross validation pedophiles to general
prisoners 5 0.56) and the remaining effect sizes falling in the large range (pedophiles
to general offenders 5 1.31; pedophiles to cross validation prisoners 5 0.80;
pedophiles to college males 5 1.23; cross validation pedophiles to general prisoners 5
1.17; cross validation pedophiles to college students 5 1.08). However, no additional
studies utilizing this scale were identified, thus the generalizability of these results
are unknown.
Karacan et al. (1974) administered the MMPI to 12 convicted rapists, 12 males
convicted of nonsexual crimes, and 12 males with no offending history in a study
that examined sleep patterns and nocturnal penile tumescence. The sample was
comprised of solely white males and all participants were matched by age, with the
two offender groups also matched for length of incarceration. Results indicated that
the two incarcerated groups did not differ significantly from one another; however,
results showed substantially elevated scores on three validity and seven basic clinical
scales when compared with nonoffending males. The authors also noted that the
most highly elevated scales were Pd, Hy, and D for the two prison groups, but they
did not report what percentage of the offenders displayed these scale elevations.
Rader (1977) compared the MMPI profiles of exposers, rapists, and nonsexual
assaulters. Comparisons of K-corrected raw scores for each scale revealed
significantly higher means for rapists compared with exposers on one validity scale
(F) and six clinical scales (Hs, D, Hy, Pd, Pa, and Sc). Further, rapists produced
significantly higher mean scores than assaulters on three clinical scales (Pd, Pt,
and Sc). A total of 10 effect sizes were calculated for the significant comparisons
between groups on the validity and basic clinical scales. In all comparisons, rapists
produced the higher mean scale values. Two of the comparisons resulted in a small
effect size (rapists compared with nonsexual assaulters on Pt 5 0.44; exposers
compared with rapists on Sc 5 0.49). The effect sizes that were calculated for the
significant findings comparing exposers to rapists resulted in five moderate effect
sizes (F 5 0.55, Hs 5 0.62, D 5 0.56, Hy 5 0.57, and Pd 5 0.53) and one large effect
size (Pd 5 0.81). The remaining two effect sizes calculated to compare rapists with
assaulters fell in the moderate range (Pd 5 0.68, Sc 5 0.59). No effect sizes were
calculated for the comparisons between exposers and nonsexual assaulters as none of
these comparisons were significant in the original study.
Forgac and Michaels (1982) compared male exhibitionists who were classified as
‘‘pure’’ (if their criminal history comprised solely exhibitionistic charges) or as
‘‘criminal exhibitionists’’ (if their criminal history comprised a variety of charges).
Participants completed the Rogers Condensed MMPI and a series of ANOVAs were
conducted to compare the mean scores of the MMPI validity and basic clinical
scales. The multivariate tests showed no significant differences between groups, but
univariate F tests indicated that the criminal group had significantly higher mean
scores than the pure group on the F, Pd, and Sc scales. Effect sizes were computed
for the significant findings and resulted in two small effect sizes (F 5 0.46, Sc 5 0.47)
and one moderate effect size (Pd 5 0.58).
Only one study under review utilized male prisoners housed in military prison
(Walters, 1987). In this study, researchers compared groups classified by their index
offense as child sex, rapists, or nonsexual offense. The latter was defined by offenders
whose offense was not sexual in nature or had no known history of sexual offending.
The authors compared scale elevations for the validity and clinical scales across the
three groups, with the only statistically significant difference occurring on the Mf
scale, on which child molesters scored higher (i.e., in the feminine direction) than the
other two groups. The resulting effect sizes for this significant finding were 0.73 for
the comparison between child sex offenders and rapists and 0.63 for the comparison
between child sex offenders to nonsexual offenders.
Langevin, Wright, and Handy (1990a) examined the reliability and criterion
validity of a group of MMPI scales that were identified in Dahlstrom, Welsh, and
Dahlstrom (1972). The authors utilized the groups drawn from the same sample that
was used in the Langevin et al. (1978). The 1990a study made numerous
comparisons, using 125 scales identified by Dahlstrom et al., and provided
information regarding the internal consistency of the scales as well as the scales’
ability to correctly identify sex offenders from the control participants who identified
themselves as being sexually attracted to adult females and who had no known
history of psychiatric treatment. The scales examined a large variety of
characteristics, such as presence of brain damage, suicidal attempts, and sexual
pathology scales. Given the breadth of areas covered by the Dahlstrom et al. scales,
only the sexual pathology scales will be reviewed because they were designed to
examine factors assumed to be directly relevant to sex offenders. Fourteen sexual
pathology scales were examined, and the Sexual Morbidity scale evidenced the
strongest ability to correctly discriminate control participants from participants
categorized as sexually deviant. However, the sexually deviant group was comprised
of individuals who would no longer be considered sexually deviant by today’s
standards (e.g., Homosexual males) as well as those who would continue to be
considered deviant (e.g., Heterosexual pedophiles), making it difficult to draw any
conclusions regarding differences between specific groups of offenders. Additionally,
the authors noted that these scales should be used with caution and are best utilized
as general screening devices rather than to identify specific sexual preferences.
Valliant and Antonowicz (1992) conducted a study of inmates, detained in jail,
who had been incarcerated for sexual offense. Authors grouped participants
according to their relationship to the victim and age of victim, and they included an
additional group of assault offenders with no known history of sexual offending. The
groups, compared on mean basic scale elevations, did not differ significantly on any
of the validity or clinical scales.
Valliant, Gauthier, Pottier, and Kosmyna (2000) compared mean profile
elevations for various sex offender groups, defined on victim characteristics, with
nonoffender control participants. Researchers compared mean score elevations

across all groups and found that the groups differed significantly on the F validity
scale and the Pd, Pa, and Hy clinical scales. Post hoc analyses indicated that incest
offenders scored significantly higher on the F scale compared with the remaining
groups, and that the rapist group scored significantly higher on the Pd and Pa scales
than the offender and nonoffender groups. General offenders scored significantly
higher than the remaining groups on the Hy scale. Twelve effect sizes were calculated
based on the significant results. With regard to the F scale, the comparison between
incest offenders and child molesters resulted in a moderate effect size (0.55) and the
remaining comparisons resulted in large effect sizes (to general offenders 5 1.44; to
rapists 5 1.19; to nonoffender control participants 5 1.01). The significant differ-
ences between rapists and general offenders resulted in small effect sizes on both the
Pa (0.17) and Pd (0.37) scales, but the comparisons between rapists and
nonoffending control participants resulted in large effect sizes for scales Pd (1.15)
and Pa (0.87). Comparisons of general offenders to the remaining groups on the
Hy scale produced one moderate effect size (to incest offenders 5 0.78) and three
large effect sizes (to rapists 5 1.20; to child molesters 5 1.32; to nonoffending
controls 5 2.41).
In summary, studies that have compared various groups of sex offenders to
comparison or control groups have shown that some sex offenders produce higher
MCMI-based Cluster A scales and that sex offenders also produce more elevated
scores on the Pd scale than nonsex offender comparison or control groups. There are
much less consistent findings of elevations on other MMPI basic scales (e.g., Sc) and
a tendency for sex offenders to produce more elevated mean scores on validity scale
F than identified comparison groups. Although comparisons between sex and nonsex
offenders can help to determine whether sex offenders display characteristics that
differ from nonsex criminal offenders, generalizations from these comparisons may
be difficult to make given the heterogeneity that is observed in the sex offender
populations, including the potentially wide variation of the chronicity of offending.
Given this, researchers have also compared sex offenders based on chronicity of
offending and victim characteristics to determine whether differences exist within the
sex offender population.
Sex Offenders Compared by Number of Previous Incidents

Table 3 identifies studies which have investigated results from objective personality
inventories for groups of sex offenders categorized by chronicity of offending.
McCreary (1975a) compared MMPI profiles of participants, convicted of indecent
exposure, who were categorized into one of three groups based on the number of
prior arrests. All groups differed significantly on the Pd scale, with the group with
the highest number of arrests (six or more) having the highest mean score on the
scale. Those with six or more arrests also scored significantly higher than those with
fewer arrests on the Pa and Sc scales. Finally, those with six or more arrests scored
significantly higher than those with no prior arrests on the Pt scale and significantly
higher than those with one to five prior arrests on the Ma scale. All significant
findings for the comparison between offenders with no prior arrests to those with six
or more arrests fell in the large range (Pd 5 2.03, Pa 5 1.66, Pt 5 1.23, Sc 5 1.68).
The significant comparison between those with no prior arrests and one to five
arrests on scale Pd fell in the moderate range (0.59). The three significant
Table 3
Studies Comparing Male Sex Offenders by Number of Previous Incidents
Average effect size

Scales that demonstrated significant differences for significant
Reference Year Instrument Comparison groups between groups findings
McCreary 1975a MMPI Individuals convicted of indecent exposure: Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc, Ma 1.37
with no prior arrests (N 5 37)
with 1–5 prior arrests (N 5 38)
with 61prior arrests (N 5 10)
McCreary 1975b MMPI 15 convicted child molesters with prior sexual Hs, Hy, Pd, Pd2, Sc 0.91
offense convictions
18 convicted child molesters with no prior
sexual offense convictions
Moncrieff and 1979 MMPI 14 males identified as engaging in exhibitionist/ See text
Pearson voyeuristic behavior and sexually assaultive
behavior
Participants from McCreary (1975b)

Participants from Smuckler and Schiebel (1975)
Forgac et al. 1984 MMPI Males convicted of exhibitionism with: no prior Pd 0.93
arrests (N 5 38)
1 to 5 prior arrests (N 5 39)
6 or more prior arrests (N 5 7)
Hunter et al. 1990 MMPI 90 incestuous offenders based on number of L, Pd, Sc Unable to
offenses compute
DOI: 10.1002/jclp
Langevin et al. 1990b MMPI 46 repeat sex offenders Sexual Morbidity, Habitual Criminalism, 0.56
50 first time sex offenders Conscience, Projection of Hostility, Impulse

Ridden Fantasy, Homosexuality – R,
Psychopathic Manipulation, Punishing Others,
Resist Being Told What to Do,
Demandingness, Promiscuity, Social
Responsibility, Social Responsibility – R
Note: MMPI 5 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

1267
comparisons between those with one to five arrests to those with six or more arrests
fell in the large range (Pd 5 1.99, Pa 5 1.30, Sc 5 0.98, Ma 5 0.86).
McCreary (1975b) compared individuals convicted of child molestation, with and
without prior arrests. The author conducted a series of t tests to determine whether
the two groups differed significantly on MMPI validity scales, clinical scales, the
MacAndrew Alcoholism (MAC) and Over-Controlled Hostility (OH) scales, and the
Family Conflict (Pd1) and Authority Conflict (Pd2) Harris-Lingoes subscales.
Results showed that the groups with no prior arrests displayed significantly lower
scores on the Pd, Pd2, Hs, Hy, and Sc scales. McCreary concluded that greater
psychopathology was associated with a more chronic criminal history. Effect sizes
were computed for the five scales that significantly differentiated the groups, which
resulted in three moderate effect sizes (Hs 5 0.69, Hy 5 0.77, and Sc 5 0.64) and two
large effect sizes (Pd 5 1.18, Pd2 5 1.29), with offenders with a prior criminal record,
who scored higher on all of the clinical scales that produced moderate to large effect
sizes.
Moncrieff and Pearson (1979) also examined MMPI profiles of males who were
identified as engaging in exhibitionist or voyeuristic behavior and sexual assault
behavior. However, these authors did not define their inclusionary criteria and their
study was based on only 14 participants, and, therefore, it will not be reviewed in
detail in the current article.
Forgac, Cassel, and Michaels (1984) attempted to replicate the McCreary (1975a)
study by classifying 84 male exhibitionists based on the number of prior arrests.
Offenders were classified as either having no prior arrests, as intermediate (one to
five prior arrests), or chronic exhibitionists (six or more arrests). Participants
completed the Rogers Condensed CPI-MMPI, and a series of t tests between groups
on the MMPI scales revealed that chronic offenders produced a significantly higher
mean score on the Pd scale than the intermediate group. This significant finding
produced a large effect size of 0.93.
Hunter, Childers, Gerald, and Esmaili (1990) compared 90 incestuous offenders
on a variety of characteristics, including the number of incidents of perpetuated child
molestation. For the current review, only those comparisons based on the number of
offenses (either greater than or less than five incidents) were examined. Those
perpetrators who offended on more than five occasions produced significantly higher
scores on the L, Pd, and Sc scales.
Langevin, Wright, and Handy (1990b) examined the reliability and criterion
validity of MMPI scales that were identified in Dahlstrom et al. (1972). In addition
to classifying sex offenders on various criteria, the authors compared those offenders
with a prior criminal history to those who were currently incarcerated for their first
offense. Results indicated that 13 of the 125 variables examined significantly
differentiated prior sex offenders from those with no history of sexual offending in
the expected directions. Six of those significant findings resulted in small effect sizes
for the following scales: Projection of Hostility, Impulse Ridden Fantasy,
Homosexuality – Revised, Psychopathic Manipulation, Punishing Others, and
Demandingness. Six effect sizes fell in the moderate range (Sexual Morbidity 5 0.75,
Conscience 5 0.59, Resist Being Told What to Do 5 0.73, Promiscuity 5 0.58, Social
Responsibility 5 0.63, Social Responsibility – R 5 0.59) and one in the large range
(Habitual Criminalism 5 0.80).
Results from studies comparing male sex offender groups with offender history
show that the greater chronicity of offenses is associated with greater elevations on
the Pd scale, and often with elevations on other MMPI basic scales, although
patterns for the latter scales vary widely across studies. These studies provided
information regarding the potential impact that chronicity of offending may have on
elevations on multiscale inventory profiles. These studies do not provide, however,
information about how different types of sex offenders may differ from one another,
based on another potentially important trait, i.e., victim characteristics.
Sex Offenders Compared by Victim Characteristics

Finally, researchers have also examined whether differences existed between sex
offenders based on victim characteristics such as age or relationship to the victim.
Table 4 presents a summary of psychopathological features for sex offender groups,
categorized by victim characteristics. Twelve studies used the MMPI or MMPI-2 to
investigate psychopathological features of sex offender groups by victim character-
istics. In the earliest of these, Panton (1978) compared the MMPI profiles of rapists
of adult females, rapists of girls, and nonviolent sexual molesters of girls. Groups
were compared on mean MMPI validity and basic clinical scales and the Pedophilic
(Pe) scale (Toobert et al., 1959). No significant mean differences were found when
comparing the adult and child rapists. However, both rapist groups produced
significantly higher mean scores on the Pa, Sc, and Ma scales and the child molester
group produced significantly higher mean scores on the L, Hy, and Pe scales. Twelve
effect sizes were calculated to further examine the magnitude of the significant
findings. The comparisons between the adult rapist and child molester groups
yielded three moderate effect sizes (Pa 5 0.60, Sc 5 0.69, Ma 5 0.60) and three large
effect sizes (L 5 0.95, Hy 5 0.95, Pe 5 1.04). The significant findings between child
rapists and child molesters produced four moderate effect sizes (Pa 5 0.75, Sc 5 0.67,
Ma 5 0.55, Hy 5 0.67) and two large effect sizes (L 5 1.06, Pe 5 0.94).
Armentrout and Hauer (1978) examined profile code type differences between
male sex offenders, who were classified as rapists of adult, rapists of children, or
nonrapist sex offenders. Comparisons of mean profiles across groups suggested that
participants classified as adult rapists displayed an elevated Sc-Pd profile, rapists of
children displayed a Pd-Sc profile, with nonrapist participants more frequently
displaying spike Pd profiles. However, the only significant difference was on the Sc
scale, with adult rapists producing a significantly higher score than nonrapist sex
offenders. This latter finding yielded a large effect size of 0.82.
Panton (1979) conducted a study that classified 35 males as incestuous and 28
males as nonincestuous molesters. Although the researchers focused primarily on the
offenders’ relationship to their victim, the groups differed with regard to the age of
the victim as well as type of sexual contact with the victim. When comparing
offenders based on their relationship to the victim, incestuous offenders scored
significantly higher on the Si scale (large effect size of 1.89) than those who had
offended against unrelated females.
Groff and Hubble (1984) examined group differences on relationship with victim
(father/daughter compared with stepfather/stepdaughter) and age of victim (younger
than 11 years old compared with older than 11 years). Validity and basic clinical
scale scores were compared, with results indicating that incestuous fathers and
stepfathers of younger girls had significantly higher mean scores on the F and D
scales than fathers and stepfathers who offended against older females. Effect sizes
for these two comparisons resulted in one moderate (F 5 0.77) and one large effect
size (D 5 0.92).
Table 4
1270
Studies Comparing Male Sex Offenders by Victim Characteristics
Scales that demonstrated

significant differences between Average effect size for
Reference Year Instrument Comparison groups groups significant findings
Panton 1978 MMPI 20 males who sexually assaulted an adult L, Pa, Sc, Ma, Hy, Pe 0.79
female
20 males who sexually assaulted a child
28 nonviolent sex offenders against a child
Armentrout and Hauer 1978 MMPI Males who sexually assaulted an adult Sc 0.82
Males who sexually assaulted a child
Nonrapist sex offenders
Panton 1979 MMPI 35 incest offenders Si 1.89
28 nonincestuous sex offenders
Groff and Hubble 1984 MMPI 42 incest offenders compared by: F, D 0.85
Relationship to victim
Age of victim

Hall et al. 1986 MMPI 406 offenders compared by: sex of victim Mf 0.81
relationship to victim
use of force
rape versus nonrape
age of victim
Scott and Stone 1986 MMPI 33 biological incestuous fathers No significant differences
29 stepfather offenders reported
DOI: 10.1002/jclp
Erickson, 1987 MMPI 403 sex offenders compared by: Pd-D/D-Pd, Pd-Ma/Ma-Pd code Unable to compute
Luxenberg et al. offense history types
victim characteristics
Erickson, Walbek et al. 1987 MMPI 59 stepfather offenders Pd-Sc/Sc-Pd, Pd-Hy/Hy-Pd, and Unable to compute
70 incestuous fathers Pd-Pt/Pt-Pd code types
158 nonincestuous offenders
Hall et al. 1991 MMPI 49 males who offended against adults Hs, Hy, and Ma 0.34
202 males who had offended against minors
(under the age of 18)
10 males who had offended against adults and
minors
Kalichman 1991 MMPI 54 males who assaulted prepubescent children F, Pa, Hs, Hy, Pt, Sc, and Si 0.59
42 males who assaulted postpubescent
adolescents
48 males who offended against adults
Valliant and Blasutti 1992 MMPI 7 molesters who offended against males No significant differences
27 molesters who offended against females reported
15 adult rapists
Coxe and Holmes 2001 MMPI-2 147 offenders classified by history of abuse No significant differences
victim’s age reported

Note: MMPI 5 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
DOI: 10.1002/jclp
1271
Hall, Maiuro, Vitaliano, and Proctor (1986) classified offenders into various
groups based on the following: victim’s sex and age, incestuous versus nonincestuous
relationship, rape versus nonrape, and use of force. The only significant overall
difference on MMPI mean raw scores occurred when offenders were compared based
on their victim’s sex. The researchers conducted a series of ANOVAs on the three
validity and ten basic clinical scales to compare those who offended against males,
those who offended against females, and those who offended against both sexes.
Results found a significant difference between groups on the Mf scale only, with an
effect size of 0.81. Results showed that offenders who victimized females scored
higher on the Mf scale than those who offended against solely males, but that this
difference was only about three raw score points.
The Scott and Stone (1986) article discussed earlier (see the Sex Offenders
Compared to Nonoffender Control Groups section) also compared stepfathers and
biological fathers who had sexually molested their respective daughters. Overall
profile elevations indicated that stepfathers displayed a significantly more elevated
profile than natural fathers, but no significant differences between the groups were
identified on the individual scales.
Erickson, Luxenberg, Walbek, and Seely (1987) examined the prevalence of
MMPI code types with 403 convicted sex offenders. Mean profile examinations
indicated that 43 of the 45 possible two-point code profile types were generated
within the sample. The authors noted that more Pd-Mf and Mf-Sc code types were
observed in the sex offender sample than other groups of offenders. Comparisons
were made with the 403 sex offenders based on victim characteristics and criminal
history, with results showing different profile elevations across groups. There were
no significant differences in code type frequency for those who had offended against
males versus female children, or between those who had offended against their own
children versus those who were unrelated to their victims. There were significantly
fewer Pd-D/D-Pd code types for those who had offended against adult females
compared with those who had offended against children, and significantly more
Pd-Ma/Ma-Pd code types for those who offended against adult females versus those
who offended against children.
Erickson, Walbek, and Seely (1987) examined MMPI profiles from 70 biological
fathers, 59 stepfathers, and 158 extrafamilial child molesters. Individual profile
examinations indicated that 40 two-point code profile types were generated within
the sample. Sixty percent of the profiles included Pd scale elevations, but information
was not provided regarding the frequency of other scale elevations. The authors
emphasized profiles that contained elevations on the Pd scale, noting that code type
Pd-Sc/Sc-Pd was significantly more common in extra familial offenders, code type
Pd-Hy/Hy-Pd was significantly more common in biological fathers, and that code
type Pd-Pt/Pt-Pd was significantly more common in stepfather offenders. However,
they also noted that despite the significant findings, the most common code types still
appeared only in a small percentage of offenders (e.g., only 15% of the extrafamilial
offenders showed the Pd-Sc/Sc-Pd scale type classification).
Hall, Graham, and Shepherd (1991) compared mean validity and basic clinical
scale scores of offenders classified as offending against either adults or children.
Although researchers noted that only 34 of the participants had sexually offended
against males, they did not divide the group further based on the victim’s sex for the
statistical analyses. Results of a MANOVA revealed a significant overall difference
between the groups, with subsequent ANOVAs on the validity and basic clinical
scales demonstrating significant differences between the groups on the Hs, Hy and
Ma scales. Results indicated that offenders with child victims scored higher on the
Hs and Hy scales compared with offenders with adult victims, with a lower mean
score occurring for this group on the Ma scale. Data were provided to allow for the
computation of effect sizes for group comparisons on the Hs, Hy, and Ma scales, but
none of the effect sizes fell into the moderate or large range (0.22, 0.35, and 0.45,
respectively).
Kalichman (1991) divided 144 incarcerated males into three groups based on
victims’ ages. Victims were categorized as prepubescent children (12 or younger),
adolescent (between 13 and 17), or adult (18 or older). A MANOVA that examined
raw score differences on the validity and basic clinical scales revealed significant
differences. Subsequent ANOVAs revealed those who offended against children 12
years or younger produced significantly higher scores on F and Pa than those who
offended against adolescents and significantly higher on the F, Hs, Hy, Pa, Pt, Sc,
and Si scales than those who offended against adults. Eight effect sizes were
calculated based on the significant findings. Both of the comparisons between those
who offended against children and those who offended against adolescents fell in the
moderate range (F 5 0.55, Pa 5 0.52). The effect sizes for the significant findings
that compared those who offended against children with those who offended
against adults resulted in five moderate (Hs 5 0.59, Hy 5 0.56, Pa 5 0.59, Pt 5 0.57,
Sc 5 0.59) and one large effect size (Si 5 0.75).
Valliant and Blasutti (1992) compared a group of 64 sex offenders classified based
on victim characteristics (e.g., offenders’ relationship to the victim, victim’s age,
victim’s sex). The authors made comparisons of the groups on various instruments,
including the MMPI Form 168 (a 168 item short form) and additional measures of
self-esteem and anxiety. Although the authors noted some statistically significant
differences between groups on factors such as anxiety, there were no statistically
significant differences between sex offenders on the MMPI scales.
More recently, Coxe and Holmes (2001) made comparisons of the MMPI-2 mean
scale elevations of 147 sex offenders, who were classified on whether they had been
abused as a child and the age of their victim. Authors reported that a series of
ANOVAs among the mean scale scores for the four groups resulted in no statistically
significant differences.
A limited literature has compared sex offenders based on victim characteristics.
Although some authors emphasized the importance of findings from the Pd scale
(e.g., Erickson, Luxenberg et al., 1987; Erickson, Walbek et al., 1987), this scale did
not consistently differentiate groups of sex offenders from one another based on
their victims’ characteristics. This may lend further support to the conclusion that
elevations on the Pd scale may reflect characteristics that are associated with more
general criminal behavior rather than traits specific to sex offenders. Additionally,
there was no consistency with regard to the other scales’ ability to distinguish groups
when comparing sex offenders based on victim characteristics.
Discussion
The current review sought to expand upon previous reviews that provided
descriptive summaries of the research that examined psychopathological character-
istics of sex offenders through the use of the MMPI (e.g., Levin & Stava, 1987;
Murphy & Peters, 1992). The literature reviewed evaluated the extent to which
objective personality assessment instruments might be useful in distinguishing sex
offenders, including sex offenders grouped on victim characteristics. The present
article included two additional objective personality measures that are commonly
used in forensic practice and identified effect sizes when possible. Results of the
review indicated that the PAI has produced the least research in this area, compared
with the studies reported with various versions of the MCMI, and particularly in
comparison to the MMPI and MMPI-2.
Only one study (Laulik et al., 2007) that examined psychopathological traits in sex
offenders by using the PAI met the inclusion criteria for the current review,
indicating that no general conclusions regarding the ability of this instrument to
distinguish sex offenders can be drawn at this time. Given that the PAI has been
admitted repeatedly into legal proceedings involving sex offenders (Mullen & Edens,
2008), additional research regarding the PAI’s utility with sex offenders is needed to
further understand the characteristics of this population, as well as admissibility
issues surrounding the use of the PAI in legal cases involving sex offenders.
Although more studies utilized the MCMI-III and earlier versions of this
instrument to examine reported constructs in sex offenders, there was little
consistency across studies regarding the findings. In terms of the MCMI literature,
it is also important to note that there is no sex offender base rate/reference group for
this instrument related to published norms. The combination of relatively few studies
and lack of a relevant reference group render results difficult to interpret regarding
this instrument’s ability to effectively distinguish sex offenders based on victim
characteristics or history of sexual offending. Similar to the PAI, additional research
utilizing this instrument is needed before drawing any meaningful conclusions
regarding the use of the MCMI-III with sex offenders.
Based on this review, the most frequently utilized (33 of 37 studies) objective
personality measure to assess psychopathological characteristics in sex offenders is
the MMPI. Only one of the studies (Coxe & Holmes, 2001) utilized the MMPI-2,
indicating that this literature is primarily based on the MMPI. None of the validity
or basic clinical scales were found to have moderate or large effect sizes across all of
the MMPI studies reviewed, but the Pd scale was clearly the most frequently elevated
scale in the sex offender samples (e.g., Erickson, Luxenberg et al., 1987). Prior
researchers have emphasized the importance of the Pd scale, and to a lesser degree
the Sc scale, with sex offender populations, indicating that elevations on two scales
are often associated with sex offenders (e.g., Erickson, Luxenberg et al., 1987).
However, closer examination of the research indicated that although many studies
showed Pd scale mean elevations for sex offenders, many of the offenders in these
research studies did not produce high Pd scale scores (e.g., Erickson, Walbek et al.,
1987), and that Pd elevations are not uniquely reflective of any subsets of sex
offenders. Graham (2006) notes that the Pd scale is associated with an underlying
construct that is involved with antisocial behaviors, including lying, cheating,
stealing, use of alcohol and drugs, and sexual acting out. Graham also notes that
individuals who score high on this scale often have family conflicts and problems
with authority figures and experience social and self-alienation. The item content of
the Pd scale shares significant overlap with validity scales F and K and most of the
clinical scales. This observation may help to explain, in part, why MMPI and
MMPI-2 code types Pd-Ma, Pd-Sc and elevations on validity scales F and K are also
frequently found in sex offender populations.
There are several possible reasons why Pd scale elevations were frequently
observed in the research reviewed. First, Pd elevations could reflect general criminal
or antisocial characteristics rather than characteristics specific to sex offenders. For
example, Forgac and Michaels (1982) found exhibitionists with a more varied
criminal history evidenced higher Pd elevations than offenders with only

exhibitionist charges. Higher Pd elevations may also reflect chronicity of criminal
behavior. In Forgac et al. (1984), scores on Pd increased with the number of arrests,
with moderate to large effect sizes found when differentiating the groups based on
number of arrests. These latter results suggest that Pd scale elevations may reflect
psychopathological characteristics that are supportive of criminal behavior, rather
than characteristics specific to the nature of sexual offending.
Although general elevations on the Pd scale have often been associated with
criminal behavior, five Pd subscales, developed by Harris and Lingoes (1955), allow
for the subdivision of the item content of Pd into areas such as Authority Problems
(Pd2) and Familial Discord (Pd1). However, only two of the studies examined the
Harris-Lingoes subscales associated with Pd (McCreary, 1975b; Panton, 1978). In
McCreary, the Pd1 and Pd2 subscales were examined, with the latter subscale
demonstrating a large effect size. Results indicated that offenders with no prior
arrests scored significantly lower on the Authority Problems subscale as well as basic
scale Sc. Panton also examined subscale elevations on the Pd scale for child
molesters, child rapists, and adult rapists. He concluded that both rapist groups
endorsed items associated with Social Alienation (Pd4) and Authority Problems
(Pd2), whereas the child molester group primarily endorsed items associated with
Self-Alienation (Pd5) and Familial Discord (Pd1) in early childhood.
Despite some interesting findings, the current review has several limitations. First,
the literature reviewed included only published research. This may have resulted in
an overemphasis on studies with significant findings, given that those studies with
nonsignificant results are less likely to be published. Additionally, several of the
studies reviewed did not provide the requisite statistics to compute effect sizes. For
the studies that allowed the computation of effect sizes, a large number of effect sizes
were calculated with only a few of the comparisons resulting in moderate to large
effect sizes. Although efforts were made to reduce error when calculating effect sizes,
the large number of these calculations made in the review could have resulted in
some moderate to large effect sizes because of chance rather than reflective of
meaningful group differences.
A striking limitation of this review is that the available literature on sex offenders
is overwhelmingly based on male offenders, and predominantly based on Caucasian
offenders. Several studies reviewed were based exclusively on white sex offenders
(e.g., Karacan et al., 1974; Laulik et al., 2007) and the majority of participants in
most studies were classified as Caucasians (e.g., Forgac & Michaels, 1982; Hall et al.,
1991). Even more striking, only three of the articles identified for review (Nathan &
Ward, 2002) examined the use of objective personality measures with female sex
offenders. However, Nathan and Ward (2002) provided only descriptive information
regarding the results and the remaining two articles utilized latent profile analyses to
classify female sex offenders based on PAI response patterns (Miller, Turner, &
Henderson, 2009; Turner, Miller, & Henderson, 2008). Females are typically ignored
in the sex offender literature, and the findings of this review reflect the limited
empirical information that is currently available regarding this population. It is not
possible to evaluate the extent to which current findings could be generalized to
female offenders, and future research that examines psychopathological character-
istics in female sex offenders is required.
Several of the problems present in the literature are reflected by the classification
strategies utilized by researchers. Definitions of what constitutes a sex offense vary
from state to state, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fourth
edition—Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; 2000) classifications related to sexual dys-

functions do not correspond to criminal classifications. For example, a diagnosis
of pedophilia may not correspond to a criminal classification of a pedophile.
Additionally, sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault are legal classifications that
do not have corresponding DSM-IV-TR classifications. Thus, the source of the
information (e.g., legal vs. psychiatric classification) should be specified in future
research studies. Further, there is no standardized method for categorizing sex
offenders based on victim characteristics, offense history, or other factors. The
research reviewed in the current article, for example, utilized various ages to classify
sex offenders based on their victims’ ages (e.g., Groff & Hubble, 1984; Kalichman,
1991) with little consistency across studies.
Another variable that was not standardized across the studies involved how
researchers classified offenders based on their offense history. Some studies classified
offenders based on their most serious offense (e.g., Hall et al., 1986), whereas others
did not indicate whether they used offenders’ current offenses or prior history when
classifying groups (e.g., Erickson, Luxenberg et al., 1987). This led to inconsistencies
across studies examining sex offender groups based on offense history and makes it
difficult to draw general conclusions regarding the relationship between objective
personality measures and offense history or age of victim. A final issue involves the
type of comparison groups used by researchers in exploring sex offender
characteristics. The primary focus in comparison groups should be offender groups
not involved in histories of sex offenses rather than control groups with no offense
history. The latter comparisons are likely to misidentify characteristics as related
to sex offenders when the characteristics differentiating sex offenders from
nonoffending controls may actually involve attitudes, behaviors, and emotions
common to many groups that have criminal conviction histories. These limitations
emphasize the importance of using consistent classification strategies to assist and
identify general trends across offenders based on offense characteristics.
Despite the aforementioned limitations, this critical review was consistent with
prior reviews in noting that elevations on the Pd scale are commonly found across
many groups of sex offenders, but that these elevations are unlikely to distinguish sex
offenders from members of other criminally deviant groups. Further, this may
suggest that the elevated scores observed with sex offenders may be more reflective of
the chronicity of their criminal behavior, a phenomena which is also seen in nonsex
offenders. Although objective clinical assessment instruments (e.g., MMPI-2,
MCMI-III) may be of little utility at uniquely identifying sex offenders from other
socially deviant groups, these instruments continue to have utility in individual
treatment planning with this population because of these instruments’ ability to
identify psychopathological characteristics that may be relevant to treatment. For
example, sex offenders who elevate scales such as D or Ma may exhibit mood
characteristics that require treatment in addition to treatment to address issues
related to sexual offending.
Although clinicians may continue to utilize these objective inventories to identify
general treatment needs, clinicians may be better served to use instruments designed
specifically for sex offenders when attempting to identify characteristics that are
specific to this population. Heilbrun (1997) theorized that the accuracy of an
evaluator’s decision is based on the quality of the evaluator’s information, which
suggests that forensic evaluators should rely on assessment strategies that are directly
relevant to specific issues. For example, when identifying strategies to effectively
manage sex offender risk, evaluators may be best served by utilizing instruments
such as the STATIC-2002 (Hanson & Thornton, 2003), which have been designed
specifically to assess risk for sexual reoffense. Utilizing actuarial instruments such as
these would ensure that clinicians are gathering relevant information to assess
recidivism risk for sex offenders, rather than trying to draw conclusions from general
objective instruments such as the MMPI-2, which may lack the item content needed
for identifying these factors for sex offenders.
The conclusions in this review also suggest that future research should focus on
examining the ability of instruments that are specifically designed for sex offenders to
identify and distinguish among different types of offenders, rather than continuing to
attempt to generalize results from clinical instruments that were not originally
designed for this purpose. This review, as well as earlier reviews (e.g., Levin & Stava,
1987), have consistently indicated that the MMPI is unable to consistently
distinguish sex offenders from other types of offenders and has not demonstrated
that a specific profile is associated with sex offenders. The MMPI and similar
instruments remain, however, quite valuable in potentially identifying the treatment
needs of sex offenders. Future research should focus on the utility of instruments
designed to address factors specific to sex offenders to gain further knowledge about
how sex offenders differ from those with no previous sexual offenses, from general
criminal offenders, and how sex offenders differ from one another based on
important characteristics such as victim traits or chronicity of offending.
References
Ahlmeyer, S., Kleinsasser, D., Stoner, J., & Retzlaff, P. (2003). Psychopathology of
incarcerated sex offenders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 306–318.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders—text revision (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, W.P., Kunce, J.T., & Rich, B. (1979). Sex offenders: Three personality types.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 671–676.
Archer, R.P., Buffington-Vollum, J.K., Stredny, R.V., & Handel, R.W. (2006). A survey of
psychological test patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 87, 84–94.
Armentrout, J.A., & Hauer, A.L. (1978). MMPIs of rapists of adults, rapists of children, and
non-rapist sex offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 330–332.
Boccaccini, M.T., & Brodsky, S.L. (1999). Diagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists in
emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 253–259.
Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W.G., & Kaemmer, B.
(2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration,
scoring, and interpretation (rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chantry, K., & Craig, R.J. (1994). Psychological screening of sexually violent offenders with
the MCMI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 430–445.
Christopher, K., Lutz-Zois, C.J., & Reinhardt, A.R. (2007). Female sexual offenders:
Personality pathology as a mediator of the relationship between childhood sexual abuse
history and sexual abuse perpetration against others. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 871–883.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cohen, L.G., Gans, S.W., McGeoch, P.G., Poznansky, O., Itskovich, Y., Klein, M.E., et al.
(2002). Impulsive personality traits in male pedophiles versus healthy controls: Is
pedophilia an impulse-aggressive disorder? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 43, 127–134.
Coxe, R., & Holmes, W. (2001). A study of the cycle of abuse among child molesters. Journal
of Child Sexual Abuse, 10, 111–118.
Coxe, R., & Holmes, W. (2009). A comparative study of two groups of sex offenders identified
as high and low risk on the Static-99. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 137–153.
Curnoe, S., & Langevin, R. (2002). Personality and deviant sexual fantasies: An examination
of the MMPIs of sex offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 803–815.
Dahlstrom, W.G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L.E. (1972). An MMPI handbook: Vol. I.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dunsieth, N.W., Nelson, E.B., Brusman-Lovins, L.A., Holcomb, J.F., Beckman, D., Welge, J.A.,
et al. (2004). Psychiatric and legal features of 113 men convicted of sexual offenses. Journal of
Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 293–300.
Dwyer, S.M., & Amerson, J.I. (1989). Behavioral patterns and personality characteristics
of 56 sex offenders: A preliminary study. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,
2, 105–118.
Erickson, W.D., Luxenberg, M.G., Walbek, N.H., & Seely, R.K. (1987). Frequency of MMPI
two-point code types among sex offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
55, 566–570.
Erickson, W.D., Walbek, N.H., & Seely, B.A. (1987). The life histories and psychological
profiles of 59 incestuous stepfathers. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and
the Law, 15, 349–357.
Fazel, S., Hope, T., O’Donnell, I., & Jacoby, R. (2002). Psychiatric, demographic and
personality characteristics of elderly sex offenders. Psychological Medicine, 32, 219–226.
Forgac, G.E., Cassel, C.A., & Michaels, E.J. (1984). Chronicity of criminal behavior and
psychopathology in male exhibitionists. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 827–832.
Forgac, G.E., & Michaels, E.J. (1982). Personality characteristics of two types of male
exhibitionists. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 287–293.
Friedrich, W.N. (1988). Child abuse and sexual abuse. In R.L. Greene, The MMPI: Use with
specific populations (pp. 246–258). Philadelphia: Grune and Stratton.
Geer, T.M., Becker, J.V., Gray, S.R., & Krauss, D. (2010). Predictors of treatment completion
in a correctional sex offender treatment program. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 302–313.
Graham, J.R. (2006). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (4th ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Groff, M.G., & Hubble, L.M. (1984). A comparison of father-daughter and stepfather-
stepdaughter incest. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 461–475.
Grossman, L.S., Wasyliw, O.E., Benn, A.F., & Gyoerkoe, K.L. (2002). Can sex offense who
minimize on the MMPI conceal psychopathology on the Rorschach? Journal of Personality
Assessment, 78, 484–501.
Hall, G.C.N., Graham, J.R., & Shepherd, J.B. (1991). Three methods of developing MMPI
taxonomies of sexual offenders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 2–13.
Hall, G.C.N., Maiuro, R.D., Vitaliano, P.P., & Proctor, W.C. (1986). The utility of the MMPI
with men who have sexually assaulted children. Journal of Counseling and Clinical
Psychology, 54, 493–496.
Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of Static-2002 (User Report
2003-01). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Harris, R.E., & Lingoes, J.C. (1955). Subscales for the MMPI: An aid to profile interpretation.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California.
Heilbrun, K. (1997). Prediction versus management models relevant to risk assessment: The
importance of legal decision-making context. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 347–359.
Hunter, J.A., Childers, S.E., Gerald, R., & Esmaili, H. (1990). An examination of variables
differentiating clinical subtypes of incestuous child molesters. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 95–104.

Kalichman, S.C. (1991). Psychopathology and personality characteristics of criminal sexual

offenders as a function of victim age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20, 187–197.
Karacan, I., Williams, R.L., Guerrero, M.W., Salis, P.S., Thornby, S.I., & Hursch, C.J.
(1974). Nocturnal penile tumescence and sleep of convicted rapists and other prisoners.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3, 19–26.
Kirkland, K.D., & Bauer, C.A. (1982). MMPI traits of incestuous fathers. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38, 645–649.
Langevin, R., Ben-Aron, M.H., Wright, P., Marchese, V., & Handy, L. (1988). The sex killer.
Annals of Sex Research, 1, 263–301.
Langevin, R., Lang, R., Reynolds, R., Wright, P., Garrels, D., Marchese, V., et al. (1988).
Personality and sexual anomalies: An examination of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory. Annals of Sex Research, 1, 13–32.
Langevin, R., Paitich, D., Freeman, R., Mann, K., & Handy, L. (1978). Personality
characteristics and sexual anomalies in males. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 10,
222–238.
Langevin, R., Wright, P., & Handy, L. (1990a). Use of the MMPI and its derived scales with
sex offenders: I. Reliability and validity studies. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 245–291.
Langevin, R., Wright, P., & Handy, L. (1990b). Use of the MMPI and its derived scales with
sex offenders: II. Reliability and criterion validity. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 453–486.
Lanyon, R.I. (1993). Validity of the MMPI sex offender scales with admitters and
nonadmitters. Psychological Assessment, 5, 302–306.
Laulik, S., Allam, J., & Sheridan, L. (2007). An investigation into maladaptive personality
functioning in Internet sex offenders. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 13, 523–535.
Lehne, G.K. (2002). The NEO Personality Inventory and The Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory of the forensic evaluation of sex offenders. In P.T. Costa & T.A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 269–282).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Levin, S.M., & Stava, L. (1987). Personality characteristics of sex offenders: A review.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 57–79.
Mann, J., Stenning, W., & Borman, C. (1992). The utility of the MMPI-2 with pedophiles.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 18, 59–74.
Marsh, J.T., Hilliard, J., & Liechti, R. (1955). A sexual deviation scale of the MMPI. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 19, 55–59.
McCreary, C.P. (1975a). Personality profiles of persons convicted of indecent exposure.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 260–262.
McCreary, C.P. (1975b). Personality differences among child molesters. Journal of Personality
Miller, H.A., Turner, K., & Henderson, C.E. (2009). Psychopathology of sex offenders:
A comparison of males and females using latent profile analysis. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 36, 778–792.
Millon, T. (1994). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III).
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Moncrieff, M., & Pearson, D. (1979). Comparison of MMPI profiles of assaultive and non-
assaultive exhibitionists and voyeurs. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of
Behavior Technology, Methods and Therapy, 25, 91–93.
Morey, L.C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Mullen, K.L., & Edens, J.F. (2008). A case law survey of the Personality Assessment
Inventory: Examining its role in civil and criminal trials. Journal of Personality

Murphy, W.D., & Peters, J.M. (1992). Profiling child sexual abusers: Psychological
considerations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 24–37.
Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex offenders: Clinical and demographic features. The
Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8, 5–21.
Panton, J.H. (1958). MMPI profile configurations among crime classification groups. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 14, 305–308.
Panton, J.H. (1978). Personality differences appearing between rapists of adults, rapists of
children and non-violent sexual molesters of female children. Research Communications in
Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 3, 385–393.
Panton, J.H. (1979). MMPI profile configurations associated with incestuous and
nonincestuous child molesting. Psychological Reports, 45, 335–338.
Peek, R.M., & Storms, L.H. (1956). Validity of the Marsh-Hilliard-Liechti MMPI sexual
deviation scale in a state hospital population. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20(2),
133–136.
Rader, C.M. (1977). MMPI profile types of exposers, rapists, and assaulters in a court services
population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 61–69.
Rogers, R. (2003). Forensic use and abuse of psychological tests: Multiscale inventories.
Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 9, 316–320.
Scott, R.L., & Stone, D.A. (1986). MMPI profile constellations in incest families. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 364–368.
Smuckler, A.J., & Schiebel, D. (1975). Personality characteristics of exhibitionists. Diseases of
the Nervous System, 36, 600–603.
Toobert, S., Bartelme, K.F., & Jones, E.S. (1959). Some factors related to pedophilia.
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 4, 272–279.
Turner, K., Miller, H.A., & Henderson, C.E. (2008). Latent profile analyses of offense and
personality characteristics in a sample of incarcerated female sexual offenders. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 35, 879–894.
Valliant, P.M., & Antonowicz, D.H. (1992). Rapists, incest offenders, and child molesters in
treatment: Cognitive and social skills training. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 36, 221–230.
Valliant, P.M., & Blasutti, B. (1992). Personality differences of sex offenders referred for
treatment. Psychological Report, 71, 1067–1074.
Valliant, P.M., Gauthier, T., Pottier, D., & Kosmyna, R. (2000). Moral reasoning,
interpersonal skills, and cognition of rapists, child molesters, and incest offenders.
Psychological Reports, 86, 67–75.
Walters, G.D. (1987). Child sex offenders and rapists in a military prison setting. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 31, 261–269.

A Critical Review of Objective Personality Inventories With Sex Offenders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Objective Personality Inventories With Sex Offenders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

A Critical Review of Objective

Article in Journal of Clinical Psychology · December 2010

Available from: Robert P Archer

This review provides a critical analysis of the ability of multiscale

Keywords: sex offenders; Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-

associated with an increased risk of sex offending to assist in better understanding

Review Scope and Focus

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jclp

Sex Offenders Compared With Nonoffender Control Groups

Scales that demonstrated signiﬁcant differences Average effect size for

Journal of Clinical Psychology

Scales that demonstrated signiﬁcant differences Average effect size for

Journal of Clinical Psychology

Disorder, Major Depression

Journal of Clinical Psychology

daughters, and relationship to children. The authors conducted an analysis of

Sex Offenders Compared to Other Types of Offenders

group (police trainees, community volunteers, and nonviolent nonsex offenders).

nonoffender control participants. Researchers compared mean score elevations

Sex Offenders Compared by Number of Previous Incidents

Average effect size

Journal of Clinical Psychology

50 ﬁrst time sex offenders Conscience, Projection of Hostility, Impulse

Note: MMPI 5 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Sex Offenders Compared by Victim Characteristics

Studies Comparing Male Sex Offenders by Victim Characteristics

Scales that demonstrated

Journal of Clinical Psychology

Journal of Clinical Psychology

criminal history evidenced higher Pd elevations than offenders with only

edition—Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; 2000) classiﬁcations related to sexual dys-

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jclp

Kalichman, S.C. (1991). Psychopathology and personality characteristics of criminal sexual

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jclp

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jclp

You might also like