Sex Abuse (2007) 19:69–72 DOI 10.1007/s11194-007-9036-5 BRIEF REPORT Response to Lalumier ` e and Rice: Further Comments on Looman & Marshall (2005) Jan Looman Published online: 3 March 2007 C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007 Looman & Marshall (2005) reported on a comparison of sexual offenders’ responses to two widely used audiotaped-stimulus assessments of sexual arousal to rape and consenting sex depictions. They concluded that there was little agreement between the two stimulus sets in terms of which offenders were identiﬁed as sexually deviant, and they expressed concern about the validity of conclusions drawn from such assessments. Lalumiere ` & Rice (this issue) provide a critical commentary of Looman & Marshall (2005), “point[ing] out errors, omissions, methodological concerns and other problems ... that greatly affect the conclusions that should be drawn,” based, in large part, on assumptions they are making concerning the methodology used in the latter paper. This response will address these concerns and clarify some of the issues raised by Lalumiere ` & Rice. The ﬁrst concern raised by Lalumiere ` & Rice is that it is “unclear whether any of the rapists had also had child victims or if any of the child molesters had also
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 3, 2007
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud