Setting the Record Straight Regarding Tools That Assess Risk for Youth with Sexually Abusive Behavior.

This critique alerts practicing professionals of the multiple misleading statements in the recently published article entitled, "A compendium of risk and needs tools for assessing male youths at-risk to and/or who have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors." This critique corrects the erroneous information contained in Jung and Thomas' article, providing current accurate information related to the important distinct differences of available standardized risk assessment tools used in forensic settings with youths who have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors. Erroneous statements by other researchers and authors in the field are also discussed. Forensic cases are distinctively different from others seen in clinical settings, requiring specific knowledge and skill set, a notable distinction not often mentioned in research literature.

The Unpopular Victims: Individuals Who Are Sexually Abusive - The Black Swans.

This article contends that youth who engage in persistent coarse sexual improprieties and/or, sexually abusive behaviors are too often viewed primarily through a criminological lens, regardless of their age, gender, judicial status, and/or experiences of past trauma/victimization. Such a posture likely falsifies the clinical perception of the individual referred for "treatment." Assessment and interventions for these youth must be holistic and idiosyncratic, considering numerous multiplex developmental variables (i.e., overall human sexual development, gender identity, sexual identity, sexual orientation, erotic development, intimacy deficits, adverse childhood experiences/trauma), as well as sociological and anthropological fundamentals. The lens for assessing and intervening with youth must also include in its focus the constantly changing Zeitgeist, that is, the spirit or the mood of the times. The proposed lens is applicable to all youth, adjudicated and non-adjudicated. Specific considerations are discussed related to those youth with a history of significant child maltreatment who later engage in persistent coarse sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive behaviors.

We are Not Adult Convicted Sex Offenders; We are Your Youth! the Call for Developmentally-Gender Sensitive Assessment of Youth Who are Sexually Abusive.

This article renews the call by Chaffin and Bonner in 1998 to cease treating youth who engage in sexually abusive behaviors like adult male convicted sex offenders. The author urges that professionals cease imposing an adult-centered convicted sex offender paradigm in assessment and treatment. A new paradigm is advocated that considers sexual developmental and gender issues, along with judicial status in all areas of intervention (i.e., clinical and risk assessment, treatment/service planning, and possible treatment [when needed]). The paradigm is grounded on the Family Lovemap model, a conceptual framework for assessing the youth's bio-physio-psycho-social-sexual and erotic development. Discussed is the evidence-based, developmentally and gender sensitive risk-level tool, MEGA♪ as a viable option for assessing risk for persistent coarse sexual improprieties and sexually abusive behaviors in youth ages 4-19 (adjudicated and non-adjudicated). Selected significant empirical findings are presented from 3,901 youths who were participants in samples of the MEGA♪ validation studies.

A Critical Assessment of the Youth Needs and Progress Scale.

Evaluated is a recently developed tool, the Youth Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS). Reported is the surprisingly palpable lack of adherence to scientific standards. A demonstrable absence of attention and accordance to scientific methods related to research and developing psychometrics is evident, that is, taking a colander approach when constructing the tool. The rudimentary steps of this project were described by Kang et al. (2019) and subsequently critiqued by this author. Significant concerns previously delineated were not addressed, but rather crystalized in a substantial U.S. federally tax funded grant for a substandard tool. These are described in this article (i.e., lack of adequate literature review, citing selective research findings, referencing face validity tools, problematic research design). The key concern is the reliance on risk recidivism tools (J-SOAP-II and ERASOR), partially based on adult research and empirically shown to have inconsistently performed in risk assessment studies.

Contemporary Risk Assessment Tools: Should We Use Them for Sexually Abusive Children Ages 4 to 12 Years?

Empirical findings are reported on an age group of sexually abusive youth (4-12 years) not commonly studied. Findings are from major studies employing the ecologically framed MEGA ♪ risk assessment tool: MEGA ♪ Combined Samples Studies (N = 3901 [1979-2017] (Miccio-Fonseca Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Special Issue on Risk Assessment of Sexually Abusive Youth, 2018a, Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 2018b) and MEGA ♪ Combined Cross Validation Studies (N = 2717). Samples consisted of male, female, and transgender-female, ages 4-19 with coarse sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive youth, including youth with low intellectual functioning. Findings provided normative data, with cut-off scores according to age and gender, establishing four (calibrated) risk levels: Low, Moderate, High, and Very-High. The fourth risk level, Very-High Risk, sets MEGA ♪ apart from other risk assessment tools by the ability to assess those few most seriously concerning and/or dangerous youth, whereas other risk tools (with three risk levels) do not make this differentiation.

MEGA♪ Tool: An Analysis of "Risk/Treatment Needs and Progress Protocol" by Kang, Beltrani, Manheim, Spriggs, Nishimura, Sinclair, Stachniuk, Pate, Righthand, Prentky, and Worling (2019).

A new risk/treatment needs protocol for assessing "juveniles with sex offenses" operationalized in the Treatment Needs and Progress Scale (TNPS) was recently introduced, prompting quick embrace before any serious examination. This article critiques the proposed protocol and TNPS. Highlighted are misleading statements, substantial omissions related to review of research, and significant margins of TNPS underpinnings that cause considerable pause. Target population, essential to adopting and implementing TNPS, is not clearly stated. Multiple basic rudimentary steps are missing in the research protocol for two age groups. The "new" protocol appears to be a re-installment of the old one, applying templates from adult tools and empirical findings on adults to adolescents, thus treating youth like adults, an outdated stance in contemporary research and clinical practice related to risk assessment of sexually abusive youth..

MEGA ♪ : Empirical Findings on the Preternatural: Sexually Violent and Predatory Sexually Violent Youth.

Applied are empirical findings from two major studies employing the ecologically framed MEGA ♪ risk assessment tool: MEGA ♪ Combined Samples Studies (N = 3901 [1979-2017] (Miccio-Fonseca 2017a, d) and MEGA ♪ Combined Cross Validation Studies (N = 2717). Samples consisted of male, female, and transgender-female sexually abusive youth, ages 4-19, including youth with low intellectual functioning of borderline or low average. Findings further support a previously presented nomenclature identifying two subsets overlooked by most contemporary risk assessment tools: sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth (Miccio-Fonseca and Rasmussen Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 106-128, 2009, 2014). MEGA ♪ Studies provided normative data, with cut-off scores (calibrated) according to age and gender, establishing four risk levels: Low, Moderate, High, and Very High. The fourth risk level, Very High, sets MEGA ♪ apart from other risk assessment tools for sexually abusive youth, which are limited to three risk levels. Very High risk level definitively identifies the most dangerous youth, thus empirically supporting the nomenclature of sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth.

Scientific Evolution of Clinical and Risk Assessment of Sexually Abusive Youth: A Comprehensive Review of Empirical Tools.

Risk assessment of sexually abusive youth is a specialty, which ideally includes a clinical assessment (e.g., psychological evaluation) utilizing a validated risk assessment tool. This article reviews tools for assessing sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive behaviors in youth: JSORRAT-II, J-SOAP-II, J-RAS, AIM2, and MEGA♪,1 and a clinical assessment tool, MIDSA. Untested, structured, clinical checklists with face validity, J-RAT-4 and PROFESOR, are included. The authors also highlight clinical dilemmas using "utility tools" (i.e., polygraph and plethysmograph) with sexually abusive youth. The comprehensive review sustains a twenty-first-century New Paradigm of inclusive ecologically based, developmentally and gender-sensitive assessment tools that definitively and accurately assess risk and protective factors of sexually abusive youth.

Family Lovemap and Erotically Related Protective Factors.

The article provides a conceptual framework of variables likely interconnected to protective factors for sexually abusive youth associated with the Family Lovemap Aggregate of MEGA♪, a risk assessment tool for sexually abusive youth. Family Lovemap Aggregate is composed of the ingredients family's familial bio-physio-neuro-psycho-sexio-social history and culture including transmissible predispositions related to erotic development. Intimacy deficits are discussed, specifically their association to erotically related protective factors extrapolated from a variety of data points and sources. This includes findings of sizable study samples of the MEGA♪ validation (N = 1184), cross-validation (N = 1056), a second cross validation study (N = 543), a third cross-validation (N = 1,118 [1979-2017] Miccio-Fonseca, 2017c). Also included combined samples of cross validation studies (N = 2,717 [1979-2017] Miccio-Fonseca, 2017d); combined samples of validation and cross validation studies N = 3,901 [1979-2017] Miccio-Fonseca, 2017e).

Response to Ross's Comment to Miccio-Fonseca and DeFeo.

Response to Ross on his comments regarding my purported misunderstanding of Ross's article and the DSM-V (Ross, 2015). Although Ross claims he offered no personal opinions of any kind in his commentary, undeniably there were two separate and independent comments in (Miccio-Fonseca (2015) and DeFeo (2015) addressing similar issues. Is this coincidental? This author maintains the stance expressed in the cited commentary.

Response to Ross's "Commentary: Problems with the sexual disorders sections of DSM-5".

The recent commentary by Ross (2015) addresses concerns regarding the newly created Paraphilic Disorders section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, and "inconsistencies." The author's statements reflect notable confusion regarding issues related to human sexuality and the categories thereof in the DSM-5 (e.g., gender dysphoria and pedophilic disorder). This is a response to Ross's commentary.

MEGA ♪ --Empirical Support for Nomenclature on the Anomalies: Sexually Violent and Predatory Youth.

Applied are empirical findings supporting the authors' previously presented nomenclature identifying two subsets of sexually abusive youth overlooked by most contemporary risk assessment tools: sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth. The cross-validation findings on an ecologically framed risk assessment tool, MEGA (♪) (Multiplex Empirically Guided Inventory of Ecological Aggregates for Assessing Sexually Abusive Children and Adolescents [Ages 19 and Under]) (N = 1,056 male and female sexually abusive youth, ages 4-19, including youth with low intellectual functioning), from the United States, Canada, England, and Scotland, were utilized. Findings provided normative data, with cutoff scores according to age and gender. Most contemporary risk assessment tools have three levels (low, moderate, and high), which may in fact be limited in assessing the range of risk level. The MEGA (♪) cross-validation established a new range of risk level, with the fourth level (very high) definitively identifying the most dangerous youth, thus empirically supporting the nomenclature of sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth.

Paradigm shift: implementing MEGA, a new tool proposed to define and assess sexually abusive dynamics in youth ages 19 and under.

Previous definitions of sexually abusive behavior in children and adolescents were deficient in failing to (1) highlight salient neuropsychological elements and antisocial behaviors that may contribute to a youth's functioning; (2) discriminate among possible types of coercion (e.g., manipulation, threats, physical force, and use of weapons); and (3) include predatory elements of sexual abuse against strangers or casual acquaintances. This article discusses a new comprehensive assessment tool that assists in defining sexually abusive youth. This tool, the Multiplex Empirically Guided Inventory of Ecological Aggregates for Assessing Sexually Abusive Children and Adolescents (Ages 19 and under) (MEGA; Miccio-Fonseca, 2006b), encompasses neuropsychological elements, coercive aspects, and predatory elements as essential factors to consider in comprehensive assessments of sexually abusive youth.

Severity of premenstrual symptoms in relation to medical/psychiatric problems and life experiences.

The Premenstrual Experience Assessment, a comprehensive questionnaire, was completed by 878 women who were currently having menstrual cycles. Their severity of premenstrual symptoms was studied in relation to demographic variables, gynecological problems, use of medications, psychiatric experience, life stressors, and duration of severity. 14 significant relationships were found. The findings are discussed both in terms of research and clinical practice.