Introduction 2000 2003 2004 some Measurement of Sexual Arousal 1998 2001 2000 2000 2004 1998 1998 1995 1989 1992 1998 2004 2001 2005 1992 2000 1994 2004 only Given the scientific and ethical concerns regarding phallometric assessment, a number of researchers and clinicians have begun to use an alternative physiological measure: unobtrusively measured viewing time (VT). With this procedure, clients are asked to rate the sexual attractiveness of photographs of a variety of models while the response time to provide the ratings is unobtrusively recorded. The assumption underlying this technique is that people will look longer at stimuli that they find sexually attractive relative to stimuli that they find sexually unattractive. In several VT assessment systems that are commercially available, the models in the photographs are clothed and are not displayed in sexual poses. For many clinicians, therefore, the VT assessment addresses some of the ethical concerns raised by the PPG. 1996 1980 1996 1996 1996 1996 TM 2001 1994 1998 2002 2005 1999 2000 2004 r r 2000 1989 2000 1998 Method Participants M SD n n n Self-Report Sexual Arousal Graphs To collect self-reported sexual arousal data, adolescents were asked to complete 2 graphs (1 graph for each gender) on which they rated their sexual arousal for 8 age-based categories: 0–3 years, 4–6 years, 7–9 years, 10–12 years, 13–15 years, 16–18 years, 18–24 years, and over 24 years (see Appendix A for self-report arousal graphs and instructions). Adolescents were first asked to rate their level of sexual arousal to the various age groups if there was no physical force or violence involved in the sexual interaction; they were then asked to use a different color of pen and indicate how their sexual arousal would change for each age group when the thought of forced sexual contact was introduced. All ratings were made on a scale from 0 (low) to 10 (high). For all participants, the graph to address sexual arousal to males was completed first, followed by the graph to capture sexual arousal to females. The graphing procedure was completed with the adolescents by a psychologist or social worker during the completion of a comprehensive assessment. There were 7 different clinicians (1 in Minnesota and 6 in Ontario) at the various agencies who assisted the adolescents to complete the graphs. Affinity Assessment of Sexual Interest 2003 2001 Not at all upsetting Very upsetting Not at all enjoyable Very enjoyable Average Sexual Arousal Scores As a result of the fact that the Affinity program uses four age groups (toddler, preadolescent, adolescent, and adult) for each gender, the eight age groups examined using the self-report graphing procedure were collapsed to approximate the same four Affinity groups to facilitate raw-score comparisons. Specifically, self-report sexual arousal graph data were collapsed as follows: ages 0–3 and 4–6 (toddler); ages 7–9 and 10–12 (preadolescent); 13–15 and 16–18 (adolescent); 18–24 and 24 and over (adult). z Fig. 1 n n n  Internal Consistency 1 Table 1 Internal consistency estimates for Affinity on-task latency and Affinity self-report ratings  Affinity on-task latency (measured Affinity self-report ratings (scale Stimulus category in seconds) Cronbach's α from 0–18) Cronbach's α Female toddlers .82 .96 Female preadolescents .79 .95 Female adolescents .62 .87 Female adults .72 .94 Male toddlers .73 .97 Male preadolescents .82 .97 Male adolescents .77 .94 Male adults .77 .94 Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's α) for the self-report sexual arousal graphs were .83 for females (collapsed across the four age groups) and .89 for males (collapsed across the four age groups). For children 12 and under (for both males and females), the internal consistency estimate was .92; for the 4 age groups of both males and females over the age of 12, internal consistency was .77. Validity 2 r p negative Table 2 Correlations between Affinity on-task latency, Affinity self-report, and self-report sexual arousal graph procedures   Self-report sexual Stimulus group Affinity self-report Arousal graphs Male Toddler    Affinity OTL ** **  Affinity self-report  ** Male preadolescent    Affinity OTL ** **  Affinity self-report  ** Male Adolescent    Affinity OTL ** **  Affinity self-report  ** Male adult    Affinity OTL * *  Affinity self-report  ** Female toddler    Affinity OTL ** **  Affinity self-report  ** Female preadolescent    Affinity OTL ** **  Affinity self-report  ** Female Adolescent    Affinity OTL * .16  Affinity self-report  ** Female Adult    Affinity OTL * −.17  Affinity self-report  ** Note. n n * p ** p Although the Affinity self-report is based on photographs of various models, and the self-report sexual arousal graphs simply require a rating in response to a numeric age group, the correlations between these two measures of sexual arousal were significant for all 8 stimulus categories. The correlations between OTL and the self-report graphs were also significant for 6 of the 8 stimulus categories. 1 3 Z Δ p Z Δ p Table 3 Area under the ROC curve (AUC) classification data for three measures of deviant sexual interest Sexual assault victim(s) n 95% CI n 95% CI n 95% CI Ever a child victim .61 .47–.75 * .54–.79 * .53–.79 2 or more child victims .60 .47–.73 ** .61–.86 ** .59–.82 Ever a male child victim ** .57–.81 ** .60–.84 ** .60–.84 Only male child victim(s) ** .60–.86 ** .60–.89 ** .64–.88 Ever a female child victim .42 .30–.55 .48 .35–.61 .45 .33–.58 Only female child victim(s) .43 .29–.56 .42 .28–.56 .41 .27–.56 Note. * p ** p Table 4 SD Comparison n F n F n F Ever a child victim        Yes .72 (.20) 1.6 .17 (.27) 2.2 .29 (.29) 1.79  No .65 (.24)  .08 (.24)  .19 (.32)  2 or more child victims        Yes .74 (.20) 1.6 .24 (.31) ** .34 (.25) *  No .67 (.23)  .08 (.20)  .19 (.31)  Ever a male child victim        Yes .77 (.20) ** .24 (.31) ** .37 (.28) **  No .65 (.21)  .08 (.20)  .18 (.29)  Only male child victim(s)        Yes .84 (.20) ** .32 (.37) ** .39 (.29) *  No .66 (.21)  .09 (.19)  .20 (.29)  Ever a female child victim        Yes .66 (.18) 1.9 .10 (.16) 1.6 .24 (.27) 0.2  No .73 (.24)  .18 (.31)  .27 (.32)  Only female child victim(s)        Yes .64 (.19) 0.1 .08 (.13) 0.2 .17 (.26) 0.2  No .72 (.22)  .17 (.29)  .28 (.31)  Participant a victim of sexual abuse        Yes .68 (.22) 0.4 .20 (.03) 0.9 .24 (.29) 0.7  No .72 (.21)  .31 (.05)  .27 (.30)  Participant a victim of physical abuse        Yes .67 (.23) 0.7 .13 (.22) .07 .20 (.25) 1.7  No .71 (.21)  .15 (.28)  .29 (.32)  Location of participant        Minnesota .70 (.22) 0.0 .23 (.03) 0.1 .26 (.31) 0.2  Greater Toronto area .70 (.22)  .33 (.07)  .23 (.28)  Note. * p ** p 4 4 r r r p 5 Table 5 Correlations between deviance indices and number of known child victims Variable n n n Number of child victims .07 * .14 Number of male child victims ** ** ** Number of female child victims −.13 −.04 −.05 Note. * p ** p 3 Z Δ p ever 6 Table 6 Frequency of self-report sexual arousal graph ratings over “0” for children aged 0 to 12  Ever more than “0” sexual arousal  No Yes Total Ever a child victim     No 16 9 25  Yes 15 32 47  Total 31 41 72 2 *    Ever 2 or more child victims     No 26 19 45  Yes 5 22 27  Total 31 41 72 2 **    Ever a male child victim     No 26 18 44  Yes 5 23 28  Total 31 41 72 2 **    Only male child victim(s)     No 28 27 55  Yes 3 14 17  Total 31 41 72 2 *    Ever a female child victim     No 19 23 42  Yes 12 18 30  Total 31 41 72 2    Only female child victim(s)     No 21 32 53  Yes 10 9 19  Total 31 41 72 2    Note. * p ** p Not at all upsetting Very upsetting SD Not at all enjoyable Very enjoyable SD Not at all enjoyable Discussion Adolescent sexual interest was assessed using three different assessment procedures: the Affinity (version 1.0) VT procedure, the Affinity self-report procedure, and a self-report sexual arousal graphing procedure. Overall, the internal consistency estimates for all three measures were acceptable for most age and gender groups, and all three assessment approaches significantly differentiated those adolescents with male child victims from those adolescents who never offended sexually against a male child. On the other hand, none of the assessment techniques could successfully differentiate adolescents with female child victims from those who offended sexually against other groups. 1989 1994 2001 2000 2000 2002 2004 2004 1992 r all Most of the adolescents found that participating in the Affinity VT assessment was not very upsetting, and many even found the process to be at least somewhat enjoyable. Given the potential intrusiveness of the PPG procedure, it is interesting that researchers have never collected information from adolescents regarding their experience of providing PPG data. Given the current scientific limitations of the PPG with adolescents, and the ethical concerns involved in conducting such an assessment, it is encouraging that at least one VT approach (Affinity 1.0) can produce some useful information regarding sexual interests without significant negative impact. Furthermore, it is important to point out that age at time of assessment, childhood sexual victimization history, and physical abuse history were not significantly related to deviance indices calculated for Affinity VT, Affinity Self-Report, or the self-report graphing procedure. Recall that some researchers have found that PPG data are correlated with these factors. 2003