Construct Validity of the Violence Risk Scale—Sexual Offender Version for Measuring Sexual Deviance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have identified sexual deviance as a particularly strong predictor of sexual recidivism in sex offenders. The present study examined the construct validity (i.e., convergent and discriminant validity) of the three dynamic factor domains (Sexual Deviance, Criminality, Treatment Responsivity) of the Violence Risk Scale- Sexual Offender version (VRS-SO) as well as the Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI; for comparison purposes) with respect to phallometric measures of sexual deviance. VRS-SO and phallometric data were collected from 124 federally incarcerated sex offenders from a maximum security forensic psychiatric facility. The Sexual Deviance factor and SSPI were positively correlated to varying degrees with computed arousal indexes (Percent Full Erection, difference scores) for child stimuli but were not significantly correlated with nondeviant arousal, supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of these measures, respectively. Convergent validity also appeared stronger for sex offender subtypes with child victims. Criminality and Treatment Responsivity did not correlate with male stimuli, although they were positively correlated with arousal to female profiles. The VRS-SO Sexual Deviance factor and some phallometric indexes of deviant arousal (e.g., female children) were predictive of sexual recidivism whereas the SSPI was not. The pattern of findings across analyses broadly supports the construct validity of the VRS-SO in assessing sexual deviance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".