Validity in Phallometric Testing for Sexual Interests in Children: A Meta-Analytic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Valid assessment of pedohebephilic interests (i.e., sexual interest in children) is fundamental to forensic clinical practice. Phallometric testing-which measures changes in penile circumference or volume, while stimuli depicting different ages and sexual activities are presented-is widely used in clinical and research settings to detect such interests. This meta-analysis summarizes studies comparing sexual offenders against children and various types of controls on phallometric tests for pedohebephilic interests (37 samples; N = 6,785) and studies examining the relationship between phallometric test scores and sexual reoffending (16 samples; N = 2,709). The findings suggest that several phallometric testing procedures are valid indicators of pedohebephilic interest. Certain methodological features of phallometric tests were associated with greater validity, such as, slide or audio-plus-slide stimuli and z-score-based indices. In addition, phallometric tests for pedohebephilic, pedophilic, and hebephilic interests predicted sexual reoffending which provides further evidence that phallometric test scores are valid indicators of sexual interest in children. In general, the interpretation of phallometric test scores as indicators of pedohebephilic interests is supported.
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 | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".