Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16149
Record ID: ce1f8a24-186f-4a4f-ad40-346b12422cdb
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMerdian, Hannah Len
dc.contributor.authorBoer, Douglas Pen
dc.contributor.authorMorphett, Nicola ACen
dc.contributor.authorJones, David Jen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T23:23:58Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T23:23:58Z-
dc.date.issued2008en
dc.identifier.citationNo 1 Vol.: 1en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16149-
dc.formatPages 38en
dc.languageenen
dc.titlePhallometric assessment of sexual arousal: A review of validity and diagnostic issuesen
dc.title.alternativeSexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealanden
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.catalogid12166en
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.description.notesWhile phallometric assessment of sexual offenders logically follows from sexual deviance theories of offending, we conclude that the evidence for this assessment process is inconsistent. A wide variety of methodologies, poorly specified and poorly chosen, or the absence of control groups has resulted in a fragmented literature in this area. Nonetheless, recent meta-analyses continue to portray sexual deviance (usually phallometrically determined) as the best predictor of future sexual violence. Recent studies have suggested that proxy measures of such deviance may provide sufficient evidence of deviance. We suggest that only by the use of research protocols with very rigorous methodology will the validity of phallometry be determined.en
dc.identifier.sourceSexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealanden
dc.date.entered2014-07-21en
dc.description.physicaldescriptionPages 38en
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing