Assessing Neuropsychological Impairment Among Sex Offenders and Paraphilics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A sample of 1,180 sex offenders and paraphilics (SOPs) and 113 non–sex offender controls were compared on the Halstead-Reitan (HR) Neuropsychological Battery. The SOPs were further divided into offenders against adults versus offenders against children and into offenders against males, females, or both genders, regardless of victim age. The confounding influence of substance abuse, history of brain trauma and abnormalities, as well as age, education, IQ, learning disorders, endocrine abnormalities, and birth and developmental abnormalities were also examined. Overall, 33.5% of SOPs were impaired on the HR Battery, but they did not differ significantly from non–sex offender controls. It was the SOPs against children who were significantly more impaired than offenders against adults. Stepwise regression analysis examining all significant variables, showed that age and IQ were the first factors that entered in the analysis, but the presence of learning disorders and endocrine abnormalities also contributed significant variance in predicting the HR impairment index. Results suggest that examination of neuropsychological impairment in sex offenders is a complex but important dimension of their forensic assessment and treatment planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".