Skip to main content
Log in

Die Screening Skala Pädophilen Tatverhaltens

The screening scale of pedophilic criminal behavior

  • Originalarbeit
  • Published:
Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Anliegen der Studie war die Erprobung der diagnostischen Potenziale von Merkmalen des Tatverhaltens, das Täter mit sexuellem Missbrauch von Kindern zeigen, im Hinblick auf Indikatoren für zugrunde liegende pädophile Neigungen und die Entwicklung einer hierauf fußenden Skala. Die Entwicklungsstichprobe bestand aus 113 Fällen des Gutachtenarchivs des Instituts für Forensische Psychiatrie, Charité Berlin, und setzte sich zu vergleichbaren Anteilen aus Tätern mit (n = 50) und ohne (n = 63) klinische Diagnose einer Pädophilie zusammen. Auf der Basis theoretischer Überlegung und empirischer Erkenntnisse wurden 6 tatbasierte diagnostisch relevante Inhaltsbereiche bestimmt, denen 23 Variablen zugeordnet wurden. Mittels multivariater Analysen wurde hieraus die aus 7 Items bestehende Screening Skala Pädophilen Tatverhaltens (SSPT) entwickelt. Das Instrument zeigte eine ausgesprochen gute Klassifikationsgenauigkeit im Hinblick auf die klinische Diagnose [„area under the curve“ (AUC) = 0,91; „standard error“ (SE) = 0,03] und war gegenüber der Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interest (SSPI ) inkrementell valide. Insgesamt stellt die SSPT einen vielversprechenden Ansatz als diagnostisches Hilfsmittel für die Diagnose einer Pädophilie dar, das grundsätzlich geeignet erscheint, die Abhängigkeit von Selbsteinschätzungen und der Auskunftsbereitschaft von Probanden im Hinblick auf pädophile Fantasien und Bedürfnisse zu verringern.

Abstract

The importance of including crime scene information into the diagnostic process and into risk assessment is emphasized throughout the literature. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the feasibility of identifying pedophilic interest in child molesters using crime scene information. The development sample consisted of 113 expert opinions in forensic cases of sexual child abuse. The sample covered 50 pedophilic and 63 non-pedophilic offenders. Based on theoretical and empirical considerations it was concluded that the study should capture 6 content areas including 24 variables. Multivariate analyses revealed that the seven items that comprise the screening scale of pedophilic criminal behavior (SSPC) showed high predictive accuracy for the diagnosis of pedophilia (area under the curve AUC = 0.91, standard error SE = 0.03) and had incremental validity above and beyond the screening scale for pedophilic interest (SSPI).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

  2. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.

Literatur

  1. Banse R, Schmidt AF, Clarbour J (2010) Indirect measures of sexual interest in child sex offenders: a multimethod approach. Crim Just Behav 37:319–335. doi:10.1177/0093854809357598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beier KM (1995) Dissexualität im Lebenslängsschnitt. Springer Berlin, Berlin

  3. Bennell C, Alison LJ, Stein KL, Alison EK, Canter DV (2001) Sexual offenses against children as the abusive exploitation of conventional adult-child relationships. J Soc Pers Relat 18:155–171. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407501182001

    Google Scholar 

  4. Biedermann J (2013) Die Klassifikation von Sexualstraftätern anhand ihres Tatverhaltens im Kontext der Rückfallprognose und Prävention. Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blanchard R (2010) The DSM diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. Arch Sex Behav 39:304–316. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9536-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blanchard R, Klassen P, Dickey R, Kuban ME, Blak T (2001) Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for pedophilia in nonadmitting sex offenders. Psychol Ass 13:118–126. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.118

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Blanchard R, Lykins A, Wherrett D, Kuban M, Cantor J, Blak T, Klassen P (2009) Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Arch Sex Behav 38:335–350. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9399-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Briken P, Rettenberger M, Dekker A (2013) Was sagen „objektive“ Messverfahren über Sexualstraftäter? Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 7:28–33. doi:10.1007/s11757-012-0192-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bundeskriminalamt (2012) Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik (PKS) 2012. http://www.bka.de/DE/Publikationen/PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik/pks__node.html. Zugegriffen: 08. Aug. 2013

  10. Burgess AW, Groth AN, Holmstrom LL (1978) Sexual assault of children and adolescents. Lexington, Lexington

  11. Campbell AM (2009) False faces and broken lives: an exploratory study of the interaction behaviors used by male sex offenders in relating to victims. J Lang Soc Psychol 28:428–440. doi:10.1177/0261927x09341948

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen LJ, Galynker II (2002) Clinical features of pedophilia and implications for treatment. J Psychiatr Pract 8: 276–289

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen M, Seghorn T, Calmas W (1969) Sociometric study of the sex offender. J Abnorm Psychol 74:249–255. doi:10.1037/h0027185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dahle K-P, Biedermann J, Gallasch-Nemitz F, Janka C (2010) Zur rückfallprognostischen Bedeutung des Tatverhaltens bei Sexualdelinquenz. Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 4:126–135. doi:10.1007/s11757-010-0041-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eher R, Rettenberger M, Schilling F (2010) Psychiatrische Diagnosen von Sexualstraftätern. Z Sex Forsch 23:23–35. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. First MB (2010) DSM-5 proposals for paraphilias: suggestions for reducing false positives related to use of behavioral manifestations. Arch Sex Behav 39:1239–1244. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9657-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hall RC, Hall RC (2007) A profile of pedophilia: definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues. Mayo Clin Proc 82:457–471. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4065/82.4.457

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE (2005) The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol 73:1154–1163. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jackson RL, Hess DT (2007) Evaluation for civil commitment of sex offenders: a survey of experts. Sexual abuse: a J Res Treatment 19:425–448. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11194-007-9062-3

  20. Kersting M (2003) Grundrate. In: Kubinger KD, Jäger RS (Hrsg) Schlüsselbegriffe der Psychologischen Diagnostik. Beltz, Weinheim, S 183–186

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kingston D, Firestone P, Moulden H, Bradford J (2007) The utility of the diagnosis of pedophilia: a comparison of various classification procedures. Arch Sex Behav 36:423–436. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9091-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lang R, Rouget AC, Santen V (1988) The role of victim age and sexual maturity in child sexual abuse. Ann Sex Res 1:467–484. doi:10.1007/BF00854711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lanning KV (2010) Child molesters: a behavioral analysis. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lehmann RJB, Goodwill AM, Gallasch-Nemitz F, Biedermann J, Dahle K-P (2013) Applying crime scene analysis to the prediction of sexual recidivism in stranger rapes. Law Hum Behav 37:241–254. doi:10.1037/lhb0000015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lehmann RJ, Goodwill AM, Hanson RK, Dahle KP (in press) Crime scene behaviors indicate risk relevant propensities of child molesters. Criminal Justice Behavior

  26. Looman, J., Gauthier, C., & Boer, D. (2001). Replication of the Massachusetts treatment center child molester typology in a Canadian sample. J Interpers Violence 16:753–767. doi:10.1177/088626001016008002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marshall WL, Kennedy P, Yates P, Serran G (2002) Diagnosing sexual sadism in sexual offenders: reliability across diagnosticians. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 46:668–677. DOI 10.1177/0306624x02238161

    Google Scholar 

  28. McAlinden A-M (2006) ‚Setting ’Em Up‘: personal, familial and institutional grooming in the sexual abuse of children. Soc Legal Stud 15:339–362. doi:10.1177/0964663906066613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mokros A, Osterheider M, Nitschke J (2012) Pädophilie. Nervenarzt 83:355–358. doi:10.1007/s00115-011-3322-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mokros A, Schilling F, Eher R, Nitschke J (2012) The severe sexual sadism scale: cross-validation and scale properties. Psychol Ass 24:764–769. doi:10.1037/a0026419

    Google Scholar 

  31. Murray JB (2000) Psychological profile of pedophiles and child molesters. J Psychol 134:211–224. doi:10.1080/00223980009600863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nitschke J, Mokros A, Osterheider M, Marshall WL (2012) Sexual sadism: current diagnostic vagueness and the benefit of behavioral definitions. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. doi:10.1177/0306624x12465923

  33. Nitschke J, Osterheider M, Mokros A (2009) A cumulative scale of severe sexual sadism. Sexual abuse 21:262–278. doi:10.1177/1079063209342074

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nitschke J, Osterheider M, Mokros A (2011) Forensisch-psychiatrische Begutachtung bei Pädophilie. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 79:535–540. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1281616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Donohue W, Regev L, Hagstrom A (2000) Problems with the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilia. Sexual abuse 12:95–105. doi:10.1023/A:1009586023326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Olson LN, Daggs JL, Ellevold BL, Rogers TK (2007) Entrapping the innocent: toward a theory of child sexual predators’ luring communication. Communication Theory 17:231–251. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00294.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Prentky RA, Knight RA, Lee AF (1997). Risk factors associated with recidivism among extrafamilial child molesters. J Consult Clin Psychol 65:141–149. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.1.141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Randau W (2006)Tatmuster bei sexuellem Missbrauch von Kindern und Jugendlichen. http://kops.ub.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-19567/Diss_Randau.pdf?sequence=1. Zugegriffen: 08. Aug. 2013

  39. Riggs N, Houry D, Long G, Markovchick V, Feldhaus KM (2000) Analysis of 1,076 cases of sexual assault. Ann Emerg Med 35:358–362. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(00)70054-0

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schmidt AF, Banse R, Imhoff R (in press) Indirect measures in forensic contexts. In: van de Vijver FJR, Ortner T (Hrsg) Behavior based assessment in personality, social, and applied psychology. Hogrefe, Göttingen

  41. Schmidt AF, Gykiere K, Vanhoeck K, Mann RE, Banse R (2013) Direct and indirect measures of sexual maturity preferences differentiate subtypes of child sexual abusers. Sexual abuse. doi:10.1177/1079063213480817

  42. Seto MC (2009) Pedophilia. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 5:391–407. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Seto MC, Cantor JM, Blanchard R (2006) Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. J Abnorm Psychol 115:610–615. DOI 10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Seto MC, Harris GT, Rice ME, Barbaree HE (2004) The screening scale for pedophilic interests predicts recidivism among adult sex offenders with child victims. Arch Sex Behav 33:455–466. doi:10.1023/B:ASEB.0000037426.55935.9c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Seto MC, Lalumiére ML (2001) A brief screening scale to identify pedophilic interests among child molesters. Sexual abuse13:15–25. DOI 10.1023/A:1009510328588

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wetzels P (1997) Zur Epidemiologie von physischer und sexueller Gewalterfahrungen in der Kindheit. Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen e. V. (KFN). http://www.edit.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/fb59.pdf. Zugegriffen: 08. Aug. 2013

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus-Peter Dahle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dahle, KP., Lehmann, R. & Richter, A. Die Screening Skala Pädophilen Tatverhaltens. Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 8, 208–215 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-014-0261-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-014-0261-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation