Advertisement

Of Dimensions, Dichotomies, and Trichotomies: Comments on the Taxometric Ghost that Haunts Longpré, Guay, Knight, and Benbouriche (2018)

  • Ian V. McPhailEmail author
Letter to the Editor
  • 21 Downloads

A study published by Longpré, Guay, Knight, and Benbouriche (2018) in Archives of Sexual Behavior examined the latent structure of sexual sadism using taxometric procedures in a large sample of sexual offenders. As the bell tolls midnight and the results were interpreted, they conclude, “the results of this study clearly indicate that sexual sadism is distributed as a dimension” (p. 410). The research is competently done, but a closer look at this conclusion appears warranted because a taxometric ghost may be haunting these data.

Identifying Latent Structure Using Taxometric Analyses

Two of the main conclusions a researcher can reach after conducting taxometric analyses are: latent structure of the construct under study is dimensional or taxonic (specifically, dichotomous). That is, these analyses allow a researcher to statistically examine the distributional properties in a set of indicators of the construct and identify whether the distributions are better characterized by a...

Notes

References

  1. Ahmed, A. O. (2010). Differentiating classes from dimensions under unfavorable data conditions: Monte Carlo comparisons of taxometric and latent variable mixture models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borsboom, D., Rhemtulla, M., Cramer, A. O. J., van der Maas, H. L. J., Scheffer, M., & Dolan, C. V. (2016). Kinds versus continua: A review of psychometric approaches to uncover the structure of psychiatric constructs. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1567–1579.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715001944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hanson, R. K. (2010). Dimensional measurement of sexual deviance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 401–404.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9575-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Knight, R. A., Sims-Knight, J., & Guay, J. P. (2013). Is a separate diagnostic category defensible for paraphilic coercion? Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 90–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Longpré, N., Guay, J. P., Knight, R. A., & Benbouriche, M. (2018). Sadistic offender or sexual sadism? Taxometric evidence for a dimensional structure of sexual sadism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 403–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1068-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McGrath, R. E. (2008). Inferential errors in taxometric analyses of ordered three-class constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 11–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701356755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McPhail, I. V., Olver, M. E., Brouillette-Alarie, S., & Looman, J. (2018). Taxometric analysis of the latent structure of pedophilic interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 2223–2240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1225-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meehl, P. E. (2004). What’s in a taxon? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 39–43.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.Google Scholar
  11. Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1996). Taxometric analysis: II. Detecting taxonicity using covariance of two quantitative indicators in successive intervals of a third indicator (MAXCOV procedure). Psychological Reports, 78, 1091–1227.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mokros, A., Schilling, F., Weiss, K., Nitschke, J., & Eher, R. (2014). Sadism in sexual offenders: Evidence for dimensionality. Psychological Assessment, 26, 138–147.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reale, K. S. (2017). An examination of sadism in sexual homicide: Are investigative awareness and the severity of sadistic behaviour distinctive features? Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  14. Ruscio, J., Haslam, N., & Ruscio, A. M. (2006). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Ruscio, J., & Kaczetow, W. (2009). Differentiating categories and dimensions: Evaluating the robustness of taxometric analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 259–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruscio, J., & Ruscio, A. M. (2004). A nontechnical introduction to the taxometric method. Understanding Statistics, 3, 151–194.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0303_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruscio, J., Walters, G. D., Marcus, D. K., & Kaczetow, W. (2010). Comparing the relative fit of categorical and dimensional latent variable models using consistency tests. Psychological Assessment, 22, 5–21.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmidt, A. F., Mokros, A., & Banse, R. (2013). Is pedophilic sexual preference continuous? A taxometric analysis based on direct and indirect measures. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1146–1153.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steinley, D., & McDonald, R. P. (2007). Examining factor score distributions to determine the nature of latent spaces. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 133–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stephens, S., Leroux, E., Skilling, T., Cantor, J. M., & Seto, M. C. (2017). Taxometric analyses of pedophilia utilizing self-report, behavioral, and sexual arousal indicators. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 1114–1119.  https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures: Distinguishing types from continua. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Walters, G. D., McGrath, R. E., & Knight, R. A. (2010). Taxometrics, polytomous constructs, and the comparison curve fit index: A Monte Carlo analysis. Psychological Assessment, 22, 149–156.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations