The Revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI-2) May Be a Measure of Pedohebephilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI-2) was developed as a screening measure for pedophilia (sexual interest in prepubescent children), but the SSPI-2 items reflect offending against both prepubescent and pubescent children, roughly corresponding to victims under age 15. AIM: We examined whether the SSPI-2 is better interpreted as a measure of pedohebephilia (sexual interest in both prepubescent and pubescent children) by reanalyzing the original SSPI-2 data and reporting its new psychometric properties. METHODS: The sample was comprised of 1,900 men whose clinical assessment data were entered into an archival database. All men in the sample had at least 1 child victim. Phallometric indices based on sexual responses to children relative to adults were used to classify individuals as having pedophilia only, hebephilia only (sexual interest in pubescent children), or pedohebephilia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The 5 SSPI-2 items were scored based on official file information sent by the referral source and self-disclosures about offending history made during the assessment. RESULTS: The phallometric indices revealed that pedohebephilia was most frequently observed (24%), followed by hebephilia only (16%) and pedophilia only (1%). Classification accuracy analyses suggest that the SSPI-2 may be more appropriately interpreted as a measure of pedohebephilia than hebephilia only; there were too few cases of pedophilia only for classification analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values are presented to assist users in selecting appropriate SSPI-2 cut-offs. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The SSPI-2 should be interpreted as a measure of pedohebephilia when used in clinical practice or research, and test users should select the most appropriate cut-off score based on their assessment context. Classification accuracy results are modest, and the scale may be most appropriately used in research or as a screening measure. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The study used a comprehensive clinical database with well-validated measures. A limitation is that the dataset did not contain other assessment measures of sexual interest in children, and we were unable to examine if the SSPI-2 could detect pedophilia only due to its low base rate. CONCLUSION: The SSPI-2 may be best conceptualized as a measure of pedohebephilia. Further, there was significant overlap between pedophilia and hebephilia; pedophilia only was rarely observed. Stephens S, Seto MC, Cantor JM, et al. The Revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI-2) May Be a Measure of Pedohebephilia. J Sex Med 2019;16:1655-1663.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".