View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Part II: Differences between Sexually Victimized and Nonsexually Victimized Male Adolescent Sexual Abusers and Delinquent Youth--Further Group Comparisons of Developmental Antecedents and Behavioral Challenges

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Part II: Differences between Sexually Victimized and Nonsexually Victimized Male Adolescent Sexual Abusers and Delinquent Youth--Further Group Comparisons of Developmental Antecedents and Behavioral Challenges
Language: English
Authors: Leibowitz, George S., Burton, David L., Howard, Alan
Source: Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2012 21(3):315-326.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Sexual Abuse, Delinquency, Child Abuse, Personality Measures, Pornography, Victims of Crime, Males, Adolescents, Criminals, Comparative Analysis, Adolescent Development, Behavior Problems, Aggression, Sexuality, Questionnaires
DOI: 10.1080/10538712.2012.675421
ISSN: 1053-8712
Abstract: In a recent paper published in the "Journal of Child Sexual Abuse," we assessed the differences between sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers (Burton, Duty, & Leibowitz, 2011). We found that the sexually victimized group had more severe developmental antecedents (e.g., trauma and early exposure to pornography) and behavioral difficulties (sexual aggression, arousal, pornography use, and nonsexual offenses). The present study compares sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized adolescent sexual abusers with a group of nonsexually victimized delinquent youth. Findings included that delinquent youth had fewer behavioral and developmental problems than the comparison groups. In addition, sexually victimized sexual abusers had the highest mean scores on trauma and personality measures. Implications for research and treatment are offered. (Contains 1 note and 4 tables.) [For Part I, see EJ912283.]
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 12
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ965412
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGFto1BFdHAAc544HwpDHLCAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJA7RFwzmHFIn6jBuAIBEICBmhnVAald5A-s9H3I2_QxGUIUqMTS3qKazdN_ntv_K188p7sKeb3hYLouSwgAmXpexiVrqn5ysgPgE2j_en_TZ_PQpGCq3lLy_Q6PK_2J8JCxSjaQ9Fsv_ZWQ5F0LptlZpGCX9rck_wQxEFy4F1nDgsispY2Os0RKfKaSCMju9qUP3yCy59KNYHriJ7uPYxlyUdaMJoA3lRHlYt4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0075125489;jxa01may.12;2019Apr01.14:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0075125489-1">Part II: Differences between Sexually Victimized and Nonsexually Victimized Male Adolescent Sexual Abusers and Delinquent Youth: Further Group Comparisons of Developmental Antecedents and Behavioral Challenges. </title> <p>In a recent paper published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, we assessed the differences between sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers (Burton, Duty, & Leibowitz, 2011). We found that the sexually victimized group had more severe developmental antecedents (e.g., trauma and early exposure to pornography) and behavioral difficulties (sexual aggression, arousal, pornography use, and nonsexual offenses). The present study compares sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized adolescent sexual abusers with a group of nonsexually victimized delinquent youth. Findings included that delinquent youth had fewer behavioral and developmental problems than the comparison groups. In addition, sexually victimized sexual abusers had the highest mean scores on trauma and personality measures. Implications for research and treatment are offered.</p> <p>Keywords: delinquency; sexual victimization; personality; sexual recidivism; adolescent sexual offending</p> <p>The current study builds on the authors' previous research investigating the differences between sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]). For a more expansive literature review on the developmental pathways to sexual aggression, the typological research, personality characteristics, and the risk for reoffense based on a history of sexual victimization, the reader is referred to the earlier paper. Findings of the earlier project corroborated previous research ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]) that a history of sexual victimization may be an etiological factor contributing to sexually abusive behavior among adolescents. Comparing sexually victimized and nonvictimized sexual abusers, our hypotheses were supported: the sexually victimized group exhibited greater developmental (trauma, family characteristics, early exposure to pornography, and personality disturbances) and behavioral challenges (characteristics of sexual aggression, sexual arousal, use of pornography, and nonsexual criminal behavior) compared to the nonvictimized group. The present study further contributes to the research and clinical literature by comparing sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized adolescent sexual offenders, with the addition of a group of nonsexually victimized delinquent youth.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-2">COMPARISONS OF ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ABUSERS AND DELINQUENT YOUTH</hd> <p>Researchers have noted that there are relatively few studies comparing adolescent sexual offenders with nonsexual offenders ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]). In addition, there are inconsistent findings across studies. Several researchers have found differences between adolescent sexual abusers and delinquent youth on a number of variables. For example, in their research review, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>] found differences between the sexual and nonsexual offenders in personality, behavior, a history of sexual abuse, and nonsexual offending. In their oft-cited evaluation of the differences between sexual offenders, nonsexual violent offenders, and status offenders (<emph>N</emph> = 89), [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]) reported mixed findings in terms of the similarities and differences between groups (e.g., regarding family criminal history) and they also found racial differences between groups. However, they did not control for race. Child molesters were sexually victimized more often than status offenders in that study. The caveat about these projects and previous research findings in this area in general is that small sample sizes make it difficult to generalize findings. Moreover, there have been inconsistent findings with regard to differences on race ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]). That is, researchers have found that adolescent sexual abusers were mostly Caucasian compared to delinquent youth, which is noteworthy in light of the fact that many investigators have not controlled for race or addressed multicollinearity. Burton and Ginsberg (in press) recently highlighted the racial differences found in comparison studies of these two groups and found that approximately 70% of youthful sexual abusers were Caucasian across studies. Consequently, we underscore the fact that race should be considered in all research involving comparisons of these groups.</p> <p>In response to the larger question of etiological differences between sexual offending and nonsexual offending groups of adolescents, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]) recently completed a meta-analysis in which they investigated differences between juvenile sexual offenders and nonsexually offending delinquents on variables related to delinquency. In addition to the finding that adolescent sexual offenders were not as engaged in extensive nonsexual criminal behavior, they found that sexual victimization accounted for differences between the two groups (following atypical sexual interests), with the sexual offender group having higher victimization rates. Building on this research, we sought to compare victimized versus nonvictimized groups of adolescents, a method not as utilized in previous research.</p> <p>In this paper, we refined our analysis to focus on salient variables based on the earlier paper and the prior literature review: developmental antecedents (trauma and personality disturbances) and behavioral challenges (nonsexual criminal behavior).</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-3">METHOD</hd> <p>We originally planned to include four groups; however, there were only 11 sexually victimized delinquents in our sample. Consequently, our analysis included three groups: sexually victimized sexual abusers (<emph>n</emph> = 143), nonsexually victimized sexual offenders (<emph>n</emph> = 177), and nonsexually victimized delinquent youth (<emph>n</emph> = 152).</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-4">Sample</hd> <p>The average age of the sample (<emph>n</emph> = 478) was 16.63 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.54 years) with no significant differences between groups on age using MANOVA (<emph>F</emph><subs>2,475</subs> = 1.38, <emph>p</emph> =.25). The age range was 12 to 20 years. Regarding grade level, no differences were found between groups (<emph>F</emph><subs>2,476</subs> = 0.53, <emph>p</emph> =.59); the average was 9th grade (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.54).</p> <p>Of the sample, 38% were African American, 46% were Anglo-American, and 16% were other or multiracial. There were significant differences in racial composition between the groups, with more nonsexual offending African-American youth than Caucasian youth (56.3% African-American; 37.5% Caucasian) and nearly the opposite in the sex offending group: 50% were Caucasian, 28.8% were African American, and 21.2% indentified as "other." Race was therefore included in subsequent analyses.</p> <p>After consents were obtained, confidential data were collected from youth with sexual (<emph>n</emph> = 325) and nonsexual offenses (<emph>n</emph> = 163; henceforth referred to as "general delinquents") in six residential facilities in a Midwest state. Multipage pencil and paper surveys were collected. Eleven (6.7%) of the general delinquents reported that they had been sexually abused and were therefore taken out of the sample, resulting in 152 youth in the nonsexually victimized delinquent sample (93.3% from whom we collected data). In the total sample, 179 (55%) reported sexual victimization as children while 146 (45%) denied sexual victimization.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-5">Measures</hd> <p>The measures used in this study as well as the results are divided into two categories: developmental antecedents and criminal behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-6">Developmental Antecedents</hd> <p>The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]) is a 34-item scale that provides a brief and relatively noninvasive screening of traumatic experiences in childhood. All of the subscales have acceptable to good internal consistency in this study. Cronbach's alphas on the five CTQ subscales range from.83 (physical neglect) to.92 (emotional neglect; see Table 1).</p> <p>TABLE 1 Results of MANOVA for the CTQ Subscales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Cronbach's α</td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> Sexually Victimized <italic>n</italic> = 143<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1004" /></td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> Nonsexually Victimized <italic>n</italic> = 177<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1004" /></td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> General Delinquents <italic>n</italic> = 152<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1004" /></td><td><italic>DF</italic></td><td><italic>F</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1003" /></td><td><italic>p</italic>/effect size</td></tr><tr><td>CTQ</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>10,918</td><td>37.697</td><td><0.001/0.291</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Emotional Abuse</td><td>.90</td><td char=".">12.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.42)</td><td char=".">9.73<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.45)</td><td char=".">6.80<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.43)</td><td>2,466</td><td char=".">44.03</td><td char="."><0.001/0.160</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Neglect</td><td>.92</td><td char=".">19.79<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.71)</td><td char=".">17.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.76)</td><td char=".">16.69<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.73)</td><td>2,466</td><td char=".">5.40</td><td char=".">0.005/0.023</td></tr><tr><td>Physical Abuse</td><td>.91</td><td char=".">13.02<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.44)</td><td char=".">10.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.47)</td><td char=".">7.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.45)</td><td>2,466</td><td char=".">41.46</td><td char="."><0.001/0.152</td></tr><tr><td>Physical Neglect</td><td>.76</td><td char=".">16.73<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.45)</td><td char=".">14.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.48)</td><td char=".">13.03<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.46)</td><td>2,466</td><td char=".">16.78</td><td char="."><0.001/0.068</td></tr><tr><td>Sexual Abuse</td><td>.85</td><td char=".">16.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.35)</td><td char=".">7.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.38)</td><td char=".">8.03<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN1001" /> (0.36)</td><td>2,466</td><td char=".">186.72</td><td char="."><0.001/0.446</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>: Scales are presented alphabetically. Casewise deletion of missing data was used resulting in lower sample sizes.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN1001" /><sup>a,b,c</sup>Means denoted with a superscript are significantly different from means denoted with a different superscript (<italic>p</italic> < 0.05, Bonferroni adjusted).</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN1002" /><sup>†</sup>Means adjusted for race.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN1003" />*Wilks's Lambda <italic>F</italic>-test from MANOVA.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN1004" />**MANOVA requires complete data for all variables; missing data result in lower sample sizes for all groups.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]) was designed for youth in treatment or correctional facilities. It was normed on 579 adolescents in such facilities with two smaller cross-validation samples. The scales derived from the 160 true–false items are based on Millon's theory of personality ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]). There are 12 personality pattern scales on the MACI, including those measuring introversive, inhibited, doleful, submissive, dramatizing, egotistic, unruly, forceful, conforming, oppositional, borderline tendency, and self-demeaning tendencies. Data from eight youth were eliminated from the study using Millon's validity scoring procedures. With the exception of the forceful scale (α =.35), which was dropped from further analyses, the remaining scales had acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from.68 for the unruly scale to.86 for the self-demeaning scale (see Table 2).</p> <p>TABLE 2 Results of MANOVA for the MACI Subscales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Cronbach's α</td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> Sexually Victimized <italic>n</italic> = 164<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2005" /></td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> Nonsexually Victimized <italic>n</italic> = 130<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2005" /></td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> General Delinquents <italic>n</italic> = 127<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2005" /></td><td><italic>DF</italic></td><td><italic>F</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2003" /></td><td><italic>p</italic>/effect sizes</td></tr><tr><td>MACI<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2004" /></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>2,814</td><td>3.88</td><td>< 0.001/0.095</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Introversive</td><td char=".">.77</td><td char=".">57.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.25)</td><td char=".">47.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.43)</td><td char=".">40.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.41)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">13.96</td><td><0.001/0.063</td></tr><tr><td>Inhibited</td><td char=".">.78</td><td char=".">61.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.41)</td><td char=".">50.94<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.61)</td><td char=".">39.75<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.59)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">18.68</td><td><0.001/0.082</td></tr><tr><td>Doleful</td><td char=".">.83</td><td char=".">66.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.56)</td><td char=".">53.78<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.78)</td><td char=".">39.98<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.75)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">24.60</td><td><0.001/0.106</td></tr><tr><td>Submissive</td><td char=".">.73</td><td char=".">53.63<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.47)</td><td char=".">49.75<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.60)</td><td char=".">47.62<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.58)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">4.07</td><td>0.018/0.019</td></tr><tr><td>Dramatizing</td><td char=".">.77</td><td char=".">48.79<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.77)</td><td char=".">52.59<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.92)</td><td char=".">50.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.90)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">1.14</td><td>0.322/0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Egotistical</td><td char=".">.75</td><td char=".">45.88<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.54)</td><td char=".">47.88<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.67)</td><td char=".">48.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.66)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">0.72</td><td>0.490/0.003</td></tr><tr><td>Unruly</td><td char=".">.68</td><td char=".">64.61<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.01)</td><td char=".">63.72<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.18)</td><td char=".">53.75<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.16)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">7.82</td><td><0.001/0.036</td></tr><tr><td>Conforming</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">44.73<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.37)</td><td char=".">45.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.49)</td><td char=".">47.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (1.47)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td>0.484/0.003</td></tr><tr><td>Oppositional</td><td char=".">.77</td><td char=".">64.76<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.18)</td><td char=".">59.53<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.36)</td><td char=".">46.66<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.34)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">16.61</td><td><0.001/0.073</td></tr><tr><td>Borderline</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">53.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.47)</td><td char=".">47.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.68)</td><td char=".">32.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.66)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">17.21</td><td><0/001/0.076</td></tr><tr><td> Tendency</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-Demeaning</td><td char=".">.86</td><td char=".">62.09<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.41)</td><td char=".">50.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.62)</td><td char=".">35.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN2001" /> (2.60)</td><td>2,417</td><td char=".">28.29</td><td><0.001/0.119</td></tr><tr><td> Tendency</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>: Scales are presented as they are in the instrument. Casewise deletion of missing data was used resulting in lower sample sizes.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN2001" /><sup>a,b,c</sup>Means denoted with a superscript are significantly different from means denoted with a different superscript (<italic>p</italic> < 0.05, Bonferroni adjusted).</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN2002" /><sup>†</sup>Means adjusted for race.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN2003" />*Wilks's Lambda <italic>F</italic>-test from MANOVA.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN2004" />**The forceful subscale was dropped from the analysis due to low internal consistency.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN2005" />***MANOVA requires complete data for all variables; missing data result in lower sample sizes for all groups.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0075125489-7">Criminal Behavior</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>] Self-Reported Delinquency Measure (SRD) was used to assess delinquency. The scale has 32 questions using a 7-point frequency scale from 0 (<emph>never</emph>) to 7 (<emph>2</emph>–<emph>3 times per day</emph>) on questions ranging from drug use to aggression. The instrument has several subscales including alcohol use, drug use, felony assault, felony theft, general delinquency, property damage, public disorderly, robbery, and selling drugs. These subscales had acceptable interitem reliability (see Table 3), ranging from.69 for general delinquency to.88 for felony theft; drug use (α =.46) and public disorderly (α =.52) were the exceptions and both were dropped from further analyses.</p> <p>TABLE 3 Results of MANOVA for the Self-Reported Delinquency (SRD) Subscales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Cronbach's α</td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> Sexually Victimized <italic>n</italic> = 142<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3005" /></td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> Nonsexually Victimized <italic>n</italic> = 118<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3005" /></td><td><italic>Mean (SE)</italic> General Delinquents <italic>n</italic> = 128<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3005" /></td><td><italic>DF</italic></td><td><italic>F</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td><td><italic>p</italic>/effect size</td></tr><tr><td>SRD<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3004" /></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>14,756</td><td>5.06</td><td><0.001/0.086</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alcohol Use</td><td char=".">.81</td><td char=".">3.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.33)</td><td char=".">2.90<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.35)</td><td char=".">2.68<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.33)</td><td>2,384</td><td char=".">1.30</td><td>0.275/0.007</td></tr><tr><td>Felony Assault</td><td char=".">.65</td><td char=".">2.66<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.25)</td><td char=".">1.70<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.26)</td><td char=".">1.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.24)</td><td>2,384</td><td char=".">11.48</td><td><0.001/0.056</td></tr><tr><td>Felony Theft</td><td char=".">.88</td><td char=".">6.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.54)</td><td char=".">4.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.58)</td><td char=".">3.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.54)</td><td>2,384</td><td char=".">6.81</td><td>0.001/0.034</td></tr><tr><td>General Delinquency</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">7.85<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.54)</td><td char=".">5.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.58)</td><td char=".">2.97<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.54)</td><td>2,384</td><td char=".">20.21</td><td><0.001/0.095</td></tr><tr><td>Property Damage</td><td char=".">.74</td><td char=".">3.69<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.31)</td><td char=".">2.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.33)</td><td char=".">0.94<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.31)</td><td>2,384</td><td char=".">19.38</td><td><0.001/0.092</td></tr><tr><td>Robbery</td><td>Not calculable—only one item</td><td char=".">0.89<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.14)</td><td char=".">0.77<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.15)</td><td char=".">0.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.14)</td><td>2,384</td><td char=".">1.57</td><td>0.209/0.008</td></tr><tr><td>Selling Drugs</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char=".">3.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.37)</td><td char=".">2.88<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.40)</td><td char=".">2.97<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /> (0.37)</td><td>2,384</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td>0.954/<0.001</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>: Scales are presented alphabetically. Casewise deletion of missing data was used resulting in lower sample sizes.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3001" /><sup>a,b,c</sup>Means denoted with a superscript are significantly different from means denoted with a different superscript (<italic>p</italic> < 0.05, Bonferroni adjusted).</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3002" />†Means adjusted for race.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3003" />*Wilks's Lambda <italic>F</italic>-test from MANOVA.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3004" />**The drug use and public disorderly subscales were dropped due to low internal consistency.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3005" />***MANOVA requires complete data for all variables; missing data result in lower sample sizes for all groups.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0075125489-8">RESULTS</hd> <p>In order to reduce the likelihood of Type I error inflation, multivariate tests (MANOVA) were conducted on the five trauma variables on the CTQ, the 11 scales on the MACI, and the 7 SRD scales between the sexually victimized, nonsexually victimized, and general delinquency groups, including race as a variable. In addition, we reported the results of the individual variable <emph>F</emph> tests from the MANOVA that were conducted in order to determine which of the individual CTQ, MACI, and SRD subscales were significantly different between the sexually victimized, nonsexually victimized, and general delinquency groups (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). The rationale for using MANOVA is to avoid potential multicollinearity between the measures. Since the measures as a whole were significant in the analyses, it is usually the case that one would investigate whether all individual scales were significant or just some of them. Finally, we adjusted all means for race.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-9">Developmental Antecedents</hd> <p>On the physical and emotional abuse subscales of the CTQ, all three groups were different from one another (see Table 1). The victimized juvenile sexual offenders reported experiencing significantly greater levels of all five types of abuse than the other two groups. This validates the subgrouping method and was expected. On three of the subscales, the general delinquents were not significantly different from nonsexually victimized juvenile sexual abusers.</p> <p>On eight subscales of the MACI, there were significant differences between the groups with all <emph>p</emph> values < 0.001. On four of the subscales, the three groups were all significantly different from one another: introversive, inhibited, doleful, and self-demeaning tendency. Where there were significant differences, in all cases the general delinquents had the lowest mean scores while the sexually victimized juvenile sexual abusers had the highest. For example, on the self-demeaning tendency scale, the victimized juvenile sexual offenders averaged 63.84, the nonvictimized juvenile sexual offenders averaged 51.00, and the general delinquents averaged 34.88 (see Table 2). On three of 11 subscales (dramatizing, egotistical, and conforming), there were no differences among the three groups.</p> <p>There were two analyses, involving the unruly and oppositional scales, in which the general delinquents were significantly different from the other two groups. On the submissive scale, the sexually victimized juvenile sexual offenders were significantly different from the general delinquents. It was the only subscale where the nonvictimized juvenile sexual offenders had scores that were not significantly different from either of the other two groups.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-10">Behavior</hd> <p>On the SRD, the general delinquents had the lowest general delinquency score compared to the other two groups, but the highest scores on the selling drugs scale (see Table 3). On two subscales (general delinquency and property damage), all three groups were significantly different from one another. Regarding the remaining two scales, felony assault and felony theft, the general delinquent youth were not significantly different from the nonsexually victimized juvenile sexual offenders, while those two groups were significantly different from the sexually victimized juvenile sexual offenders. On the seven subscales of the SRD that were used in the analysis, there were no significant differences between the groups on three of them.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-11">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]) offered a full discussion regarding the differences between the sexual offender groups; we will therefore restrict this discussion to differences between the two juvenile sex offender groups and the general delinquency group and new findings. In terms of research implications in the earlier study, it was suggested that nonvictimized abusers be compared with delinquent adolescents to determine if these groups are similar in terms of pathways to aggression (coinciding with the typological research) and treatment needs. In 20 out of the 23 analyses (87%) in the present study, the scale means followed the same pattern: sexually victimized youth had the "worst" results (highest scale scores), followed by nonsexually victimized sexual offenders and general delinquent youth. That is to say, general delinquent youth had fewer behavioral and development problems than victimized and nonvictimized juvenile sexual offenders. This differs from previous research findings on this issue (as summarized by [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>] meta-analysis). However, given the present study had a larger sample size than many of these previous studies and included continuous measures rather than dichotomous or reduced measures (which are needed for meta-analyses, as measures have to be reduced across studies to create a common denominator), it might be expected that we would indeed find clearer differences between groups.</p> <p>While the means of the scale items followed the pattern described, in terms of probability this was not so much the case. As indicated in the tables, on seven scales the three groups significantly differed from each other (CTQ: emotional abuse and physical abuse; MACI: inhibited, doleful, and self-demeaning tendency; SRD: general delinquency and property damage). On six of the scales, the three groups were the same (MACI: dramatizing, egotistical, and conforming; SRD: alcohol use, robbery, and selling Drugs). On five of the scales, nonsexually victimized sexual offenders and general delinquents were significantly different from sexually victimized sexual offenders (CTQ: emotional neglect, physical neglect, and sexual abuse; MACI: submissive; SRD: felony assault and felony theft), while on four of the scales sexually aggressive youth as a whole were significantly different from general delinquents but not from one another (MACI: submissive, egotistical, oppositional, and borderline tendency).</p> <p>There are many interesting points for discussion that emerge from these patterns. For example, on three of the five CTQ trauma scales, the nonsexually victimized and general delinquent groups held together (i.e., the means were not significantly different from one another). Perhaps traumatic sequelae were most severe for the sexual abusers who have been victimized (consistent with the extant literature on trauma among adolescent sexual offenders). Only on the MACI personality scales did the two sexually offending groups hold together (on 4 out of the 10 scales); perhaps the personality characteristics shared by the sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized groups were associated with the etiology or commission of sexually aggressive acts.</p> <p>Finally, it is also interesting to consider the scales on which no differences between groups were found. Perhaps there was some overlap between the groups on variables in which the means were not distinctly different. In cases where there was plea bargaining and responses to legal sanctions (such as registration requirements) that resulted in reduced charges for a sexual offense, these findings regarding similarities may, in part, be due to judicial decisions rather than actual developmental or behavioral distinctions between the youth.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>] In terms of future research, we propose the missing fourth group (sexually victimized delinquents) needs to be included and even with this relatively large sample, larger and more generalizable samples would improve external validity.</p> <p>Related to practice implications, by building on our previous research and adding a third group of delinquent youth, a clear delineation can be seen in this sample. These findings imply that different resource allocations and testing protocols may be needed for each of these groups of youth to address such issues as trauma, a history of sexual victimization, and other factors associated with sexual and nonsexual offending. These findings also suggest that recommendations regarding residential versus community placement decisions for these groups need to be carefully considered, as do changes in dosage of treatment and level of supervision and monitoring across these groups (see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4. Differential Resource Allocation by Group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Sexually Victimized Sexual Offenders</td><td>Nonsexually Victimized Offenders</td><td>General Delinquents</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>Highest (e.g., deviant sexual interests, trauma, personality, and nonsexual criminality)</td><td>Moderate testing protocols</td><td>Fewest testing protocols</td></tr><tr><td>Trauma Informed Treatment</td><td>Highest</td><td>Moderate</td><td>Lowest</td></tr><tr><td>Placement (based on risk and needs)</td><td>More likely to need residential</td><td>Residential and community</td><td>Community and residential</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment Dosage (e.g., number of sessions)</td><td>Highest</td><td>Moderate</td><td>Lowest</td></tr><tr><td>Supervision</td><td>Highest</td><td>Moderate</td><td>Lowest</td></tr><tr><td>Monitoring</td><td>Highest</td><td>Moderate</td><td>Lowest</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Finally, while [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]) suggested modified multisystemic therapy for juvenile sexual offenders that include additional treatment areas that are not addressed in interventions designed for delinquent youth (e.g., addressing paraphilias), we also recommend other modalities addressing the specialized needs of victimized adolescent sexual abusers in offense-specific treatment, such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (e.g., see [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]). In agreement with previous research, trauma is a strong and salient variable in understanding the differences between these groups (e.g., Seto & Lalumière; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]). Further research on the impact of traumatic stress on these groups of adolescents is warranted, which is integral to the prevention and treatment of adolescent sexual abuse.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-12">Limitations</hd> <p>There are limitations with all studies utilizing self-report data. However, we did remove data from the analysis based on social desirability criteria indicated on the MACI scoring rules. In addition, findings may not generalize to nonincarcerated males or community-based samples. Similarly, as a nonprobability sample, external validity is limited. Finally, the inclusion of a comparison group of sexually victimized general delinquents would have made the results even more robust.</p> <hd id="AN0075125489-13">Notes</hd> <ref id="AN0075125489-14"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> 1. The distinction between the sexual offender and the nonsexual offender groups was determined by facility location based on legal charges.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0075125489-15"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bernstein, D. P. and Fink, L.1998. Childhood Trauma Questionnaire: A retrospective self-report, San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Burton, D. L., Duty, K. J. and Leibowitz, G. S.2011. Differences between sexually victimized and non-sexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers: Developmental antecedents and behavioral comparisons. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20: 1–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Burton, D. L. and Ginsberg, D.2012. "An exploration of racial differences in deviant sexual interests among male adolescent sexual offenders". In Journal of Forensic Social Work, Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1936928X.2011.609766</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burton, D., Miller, D. and Shill, C. T.2002. A social learning theory comparison of the sexual victimization of adolescent sexual offenders and nonsexual offending male delinquents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26: 893–907.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref17" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., Zhitova, A. C. and Capone, M. E.2003. Treating child abuse-related posttraumatic stress and comorbid substance abuse in adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27: 1345–1365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Elliot, D. S., Huizinga, D. and Ageton, S. S.1985. Explaining delinquency and drug use, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ford, M. E. and Linney, J. A.1995. Comparative analysis of juvenile sexual offenders, violent nonsexual offenders, and status offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(1): 56–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hunter, J., Figueredo, A., Malamuth, N. M. and Becker, J.2003. Juvenile sex offenders: Toward the development of a typology. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(1): 27–48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Millon, T.1993. Millon adolescent clinical inventory: Manual, Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Millon, T. and Davis, R.1996. Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond, New York: John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seto, M. and Lalumière, M.2010. What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136: 526–575.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Wijk, A., Vermeiren, R., Loeber, R., Hart-Kerkhoffs, L., Doreleijers, T. and Bullens, R.2006. Juvenile sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders: A review of the literature 1995–2005. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7: 227–243.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By GeorgeS. Leibowitz; DavidL. Burton and Alan Howard</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ965412
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Part II: Differences between Sexually Victimized and Nonsexually Victimized Male Adolescent Sexual Abusers and Delinquent Youth--Further Group Comparisons of Developmental Antecedents and Behavioral Challenges
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leibowitz%2C+George+S%2E%22">Leibowitz, George S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burton%2C+David+L%2E%22">Burton, David L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Howard%2C+Alan%22">Howard, Alan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Child+Sexual+Abuse%22"><i>Journal of Child Sexual Abuse</i></searchLink>. 2012 21(3):315-326.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexual+Abuse%22">Sexual Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delinquency%22">Delinquency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Abuse%22">Child Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Measures%22">Personality Measures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pornography%22">Pornography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Victims+of+Crime%22">Victims of Crime</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Males%22">Males</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Criminals%22">Criminals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescent+Development%22">Adolescent Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aggression%22">Aggression</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexuality%22">Sexuality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10538712.2012.675421
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1053-8712
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In a recent paper published in the "Journal of Child Sexual Abuse," we assessed the differences between sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers (Burton, Duty, & Leibowitz, 2011). We found that the sexually victimized group had more severe developmental antecedents (e.g., trauma and early exposure to pornography) and behavioral difficulties (sexual aggression, arousal, pornography use, and nonsexual offenses). The present study compares sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized adolescent sexual abusers with a group of nonsexually victimized delinquent youth. Findings included that delinquent youth had fewer behavioral and developmental problems than the comparison groups. In addition, sexually victimized sexual abusers had the highest mean scores on trauma and personality measures. Implications for research and treatment are offered. (Contains 1 note and 4 tables.) [For Part I, see EJ912283.]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 12
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ965412
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ965412
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10538712.2012.675421
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 315
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sexual Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delinquency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pornography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Victims of Crime
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Males
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Criminals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescent Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aggression
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sexuality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Part II: Differences between Sexually Victimized and Nonsexually Victimized Male Adolescent Sexual Abusers and Delinquent Youth--Further Group Comparisons of Developmental Antecedents and Behavioral Challenges
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leibowitz, George S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burton, David L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Howard, Alan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1053-8712
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Child Sexual Abuse
              Type: main
ResultId 1