Psycho-vegetative methods of diagnosis in the practice of forensic psychiatry
Suggested citation:
Kamenskov MYu, Merfi L, Kupcova DM. [Psycho-vegetative methods of diagnosis in the practice of forensic psychiatry]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2018;(3):61-73. Russian
The article presents an information-analytical review for the purpose of introducing the psychophysiological approaches to assessment of disorders of sexual preference with the use of penile plethysmography and the polygraph. It briefly explores the historical aspects of the use of psychophysiological methods in criminological and sexological practice. The necessity for their use in the forensic psychiatric examinations is substantiated. The methodological support for both methods has been described in detail. The article focuses on the problems, which generally affect the validity and reliability of penile plethysmography and the polygraph.
Keywords phallometry; penile tumescence; assessment; polygraph; paraphilias
1. Barker JG, Howell RJ. The plethysmograph: A review of recent literature. B. Am. Acad. Psych. Law. 1992;20(1):13–25. 2. Fedoroff JP, Kuban M, Bradford JM. Laboratory measurement of penile response in the assessment of sexual interests. In: (Eds) F Saleh, A Grudzinskas, J Bradford, D Brodsky. Sex offenders: Identification, risk assessment, treatment and legal issues. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:89–100. 3. Fernandez Y. The standardization of phallometry. In: Beech AR, Craig LA, Browne KD. Assessment and treatment of sex offenders: A handbook. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons; 2009:129–43. 4. Fernandez YM, Marshall WL. Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists. Sex Abuse J R Tr. 2003;15(1):11–26. 5. Johnson SA, Listiak A. The measurement of sexual preference – A preliminary comparison of phallometry and the Abel assessment. In: Schwartz B. The sex offender: Theoretical advances, treating special populations and legal developments. Kingston: Civic Research Institute; 1999; III:26.1–26.20. 6. Marshall WL. Phallometric assessments of sexual interests: An update. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014;16(1):428–34. 7. Murphy L, Ranger R, Stewart H, Dwyer G, Fedoroff JP. Assessment of problematic sexual interests with the penile plethysmograph: An overview of assessment laboratories. Current Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17(5). 8. Pithers WD, Laws DR. Phallometric Assessment. In: Schwartz BK, Cellini HR. The sex offender: Corrections, treatment and legal practice. Kingston: Civic Research Institute; 1995:12.1–12.18. 9. Gazan F. Penile plethysmography before the European Court of Human Rights. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 2002;14(1):89–93. 10. Murphy L, Ranger R, Fedoroff JP, Stewart H, Dwyer G, Burke W. Standardization in the use of penile plethysmography testing in assessment of problematic sexual interests. J Sex Med. 2015;12(9):1853–61. 11. Fedoroff JP, Marshall W. Apparent problems in CBT treatment of paraphilia sexual disorders. In: Abramowitz J, Taylor S, McKay D. Treatment refractory cases in CBT. New York: American Psychological Association; 2009:369–84. 12. Mueller K, Curry S, Ranger R, Briken P, Bradford J, Fedoroff P. Changes in sexual arousal as measured by penile plethysmography in men with pedophilic sexual interest. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1221–9. 13. Kalmus E, Beech AR. Forensic assessment of sexual interest: A review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2005;10:193–217. 14. Marshall WL. Clinical and research limitations in the use of phallometric testing with sexual offenders. Sex. Offender. Treat. 2006;1:1–18. 15. McConaghy N. Unresolved issues in scientific sexology. Arch Sex Behav. 1999;28:285–318. 16. Kuban M, Barbaree HE, Blanchard R. A comparison of volume and circumference phallometry: Response magnitude and method agreement. Arch Sex Behav. 1999;28:345–59. 17. Langevin R. Sexual preference testing. Toronto: Juniper Press. 1989. 18. McAnaulty RD, Adams HE. Validity and ethics of penile circumference measurements of sexual arousal: A reply to McConaghy. Arch Sex Behav. 1992;21:177–86. 19. Merdian HL, Jones DT. Phallometric assessment of sexual arousal. In: Boer DP, Eher R, Craig LA, Miner MH, Pfäfflin F. International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders. West Sussex: John Wiley&Sons; 2011:142–67. 20. Wheeler D, Rubin HB. A comparison of volumetric and circumferential measures of penile erectio. Arch Sex Behav. 1987;16:289–99. 21. Fisher C, Gross J, Zuch J. Cycle of penile erection synchronous with dreaming (REM) sleep: Preliminary report. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12:29–45. 22. Fernandez Y. The standardization of phallometry. In: Beech AR, Craig LA, Browne KD. Assessment and treatment of sex offenders: A handbook. West Sussex: JohnWiley and Sons; 2009:129–43. 23. American Psychiatric Association (APA) Gold Award: Improving Community Safety by Providing Treatment to a Highly Marginalized Clinical Population. Psychiatric Services. 2015;66(10):1–4. 24. Marshall WL, Fernandez YM. Phallometric testing with sexual offenders: Limits to its value. Clin Psychol Rev. 2000;20:807–22. 25. Gaither GA, Plaud JJ. The effects of secondary stimulus characteristics on men’s sexual arousal. J Sex Res. 1997;34(3):231–6. 26. Murrin MR, Laws DR. Linearity characteristics of three penile transducers. In: Tampa FL. Florida Mental Health Institute; 1986. 27. Earls CM, Marshall WL. The simultaneous and independent measurement of penile circumference and length. Behav Res Meth Instr. 1982;14:447–50. 28. Lykins AD, Robinson JJ, LeBlanc S, Cantor JM. The effects of common medications on volumetric phallometry. J Sex Aggress. 2015; 21(3):385–93. 29. Criminal Code (RSC); Ottawa. 1985:C-46. 30. Card RD, Olsen SE. Visual plethysmograph stimuli involving children: Rethinking some quasi-legal issues. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 1996;8(4):267–71. 31. Criminal Code. 18 USC §2256(2); U.S. Government Publishing Office. 2012:491–2. 32. Lalumière ML, Harris GT. Common questions regarding the use of phallometric testing with sexual offenders. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 1998;10(3):227–37. 33. Looman J, Marshall W. Phallometric assessments designed to detect arousal to children: The responses of rapists and child molesters. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 2001;13(1):3–13. 34. Chaplin TC, Rice ME, Harris GT. Salient victim suffering and sexual responses of child molesters. J Consult Clin Psych. 1995;63(2):149–55. 35. Murphy L, Ranger R, Fedoroff JP, Dwyer RD, Burke W. Real Child Voices: Preliminary results on the use of age and gender congruent voices on sexual arousal to child sexual scenarios. International Association of Sex Research annual meeting. Poster session. Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2015. 36. Murphy L, Ranger R, Fedoroff JP, Burke W, Dwyer RD. Real Child Voices: The impact of age and gender congruent voices on sexual arousal to child sexual scenarios. International Association of Sex Research annual meeting. Poster session. Malmo, Sweden; 2016. 37. Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL, Chaplin TC, Earls C. Maximizing the discriminant validity of phallometric assessment data. Psychol Assessment. 1992;4(4):502–11. 38. Purcell MS, Chandler JA, Fedoroff JP. The use of phallometric evidence in Canadian criminal law. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015;43:141–53. 39. Lombrozo Ch. Criminal man. Moscow; 2018. 352 p. Russian. 40. Grubin D. The polygraph and forensic psychiatry. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010;38(4):446–51. 41. Ogloblin SI, Molchanov AJu. Instrumental'naja «detekcija lzhi» (proverki na poligrafe): akademicheskij kurs. Jaroslavl'; 2004. 464 p. Russian. 42. Dwyer RG, Letourneau EJ. Juveniles who sexually offend: recommending a treatment program and level of care. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2011;30(3):413–29. 43. Grubin D, Madsen L. Accuracy and utility of post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders. Br J Psychiatry. 2006; 188(5):479–83. 44. Soothill K, Francis В, Sanderson B, et al. Sex Offenders: Specialists, Centralists – or Both? Br J Criminology. 2000;40:56–67. 45. Thornton D, Mann R, Webster S, et al. Distinguishing and Combining Risks for Sexual and Violent Recidivism. Ann New York Acad Sciences. 2003;989:225–35. 46. Mysterious A. [Pedophilia and children pornography in context of contemporary society]. Nezavisimyy psikhiatricheskiy zhurnal [Independent psychiatric journal]. 2016;1:18–39. Russian. 47. Saleh FM, Grudzinskas AJ, Malin HM, Dwyer RG. The management of sex offenders: perspectives for psychiatry. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry. 2010;18(6):359–68. 48. Tkachenko AA, Vvedenskiy GE, Dvoryanchikov NV. Sudebnaya seksologiya. Moscow; 2014. 648 p. Russian. 49. Ahlmeyer S. The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sex Abuse. 2000;12(2):123–38. 50. Kamenskov MY. Validity of the psychophysiological diagnosis of paraphylia. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova. 2013;113(3–1):39–44. Russian. 51. Reid JE. A revised questioning technique in lie-detection test. J Crim Law Criminology. Mar-Apr1947;37(6):542-7. 52. American Polygraph Association Meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques. Polygraph. 2011:40(4):196–305. 53. Department of Defense Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook. Polygraph. 2006;40(1):2–66. 54. Kircher JC, Raskin DC. Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. J Appl Psychology. 1988;73:291–302. 55. Handler M. The Utah Probable Lie Comparison Test. Polygraph. 2006;35(3):139–46. 56. Nelson R, Handler M. Statistical reference distributions for comparison question polygraphs. Polygraph. 2015;44(1):91–114. 57. Raskin D, Honts C, Nelson R, Handler M. Monte Carlo estimates of the validity of four relevant question polygraph examinations. Polygraph. 2015:44(1):1–27. 58. National Research Council: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2003. 398 p. 59. Ben-Shakhar G. The case against the use of polygraph examinations to monitor post-conviction sex offenders. Legal Criminolog Psychology. 2008; 13(2):191–207. 60. Grubin D. The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2008;13(2):177–89. 61. Kupcova DM, Kamenskov MJu. [The Influence of psychological and psychosexual factors on psychophysiological reactivity]. Psihologija i pravo [Psychology and law]. 2018; 8(1):13–25. Russian. 62. Losev AV, Fon Miller AA, Rjabov KI. Metod kontrol'nyh voprosov Metody proverki na poligrafe. Moscow; 2016. 534 p. Russian.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24411/1560-957X-2018-1%25x
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM