Are you a sex offender? Just take this test

Can the Abel Assessment really accurately pick a sexual offender? Source: Alamy

THERE is a test that no one on the planet would want to fail — the one that could actually help authorities decide if you are a paedophile or not.

With more than 100 questions to answer and then at least that number of images where a subject has to rate them from a level of disgusting to highly arousing, the results are changing the lives of thousands of men.

The controversial test, called the Abel Assessment, is a computerised assessment that can actually help shape the futures of men who take it. Because in the United States, where creator Dr Gene Abel is based, everything from custody battles, parole, probation and even some criminal trials use the Abel Assessment to influence their decisions.

But can simply answering questions really prove one way or another that someone is a paedophile?

It is regarded highly enough that in the States positive tests have been used to allow someone to seek counselling rather than be convicted for a sexual offence and Dr Abel himself estimates has been used 170,000 times since it was developed in the 1990s.

The actual test is kept top secret to prevent child molesters preparing themselves before sitting it therefore affecting the results. But there are a few clues, and they do nothing to convince opponents this is a test with no scientific basis at all.

A man who was forced to complete the Abel Assessment as part of a custody battle with his ex-wife told The Atlantic he was given 100 questions to answer. Some were relatively obvious, for example, are you attracted to children,while others related to sexual interests, for example voyeurism.

Next were the pictures, where the man was supposed to rate from highly arousing to disgusting. The Atlantic reported the images were of a range of people, genders and ages, in various stages of undress although none were actually naked. One was just a picture of a group of people in a crowd.

Dr Abel has never spoken about what formula he uses to arrive at a conclusion but has previously written about “visual reaction time” which, essentially, is how long someone lingers over an image. The obvious insinuation is if you pause for longer over an image of a young child then it implies you have a sexual interest in them.

Unsurprisingly, the Abel Assessment has attracted some fierce criticism.

Psychologists have expressed their concerns the test doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and have called for far more studies to be done to ensure its robust, while others worry it could easily be manipulated — by paedophiles themselves and even law enforcement and the courts who use the interpretations to make judgments that can change lives forever.

In response, Dr Abel has argued that his test is just one tool investigators should use to catch sex offenders and there is no way to avoid false negatives and false positives.

He firmly believes his testing reigme does more good than harm and has maintained not having tools like the one he’s developed would be worse than nothing at all.

“This is not a perfect test. There are no perfect tests.”

Dr Gerard Webster, one of Australia’s leading forensic psychologists, hadn’t heard of it being used before in Australia, and told news.com.au there were doubts about it, including whether it as scientific or robust enough.

Central to his concerns was the information that is gleaned from the test is used by the courts “where really important decisions are being made on the lives of people, whether it’s the person accused or if it’s a child who won’t have access to their parents...It’s all those sorts of things.”

Dr Webster said: “Making powerful claims based on very doubtful psychological instrument is not the way to go.”

He said sexual abuse was not always about sexual deviancy; there could be other factors motivating them such as seeking a sense of power.

“They could be using sex in a crazy disassociated way, in a bit of a zone themselves, where their own past trauma is being played out...There could be 1000 different things. So on those grounds, if it worked, it would only be measuring one of a multitude of things.”

The inference the test made was useful for a clinician to “use in the back of their minds” but there would be problems if that information was used by courts.

“It puts it on a stage where it’s not meant to be. It’s heard by people as these very clear-cut definitive statements [but] that’s gobbledygook for people who aren’t psychologists. However, these decisions are being made by lawyers, child protection workers and parole officers. All these decisions are being made on hypotheses and being considered as fact — and that’s the real downfall.”

Share this

TeDz