Is there any hard evidence that psychological screening has a high success rate in catching pedophiles and men inclined to abuse post-pubescent minors or vulnerable adults?
I've heard this kind of suggestion before, and I'm not really a wide reader of psychology studies, so I could easily miss it. But I also recall a major factor in movin…
Is there any hard evidence that psychological screening has a high success rate in catching pedophiles and men inclined to abuse post-pubescent minors or vulnerable adults?
I've heard this kind of suggestion before, and I'm not really a wide reader of psychology studies, so I could easily miss it. But I also recall a major factor in moving offending priests around being the assurance of psychologists that they had cured the pedophile and made him perfectly safe.
The Church shouldn't put all her eggs in one basket, in any case. Especially not when she's still having so much trouble getting rid of abusers that have been identified.
A good Pillar article/series would be talking to vocation directors and psychologists who screen candidates to see what the normal procedures are, how consistent they are, what responses/interventions are normally made in response to concerning results, etc. Probably would have to get most of them off them off the record... but I am certain Ed, JD, & Co. could do it.
I often wonder about calling references - I can't recall that for any job or position I have held, including volunteering so when I was getting my clearances, that my listed references or even previous employers were actually contacted. I suppose someone with a serious ax to grind (who perhaps has major issues of their own) could spoil it, but you could get a lot of useful information this way that isn't the kind of thing you could hide on a formal application or even in an interview (or psych screening if you're savvy enough to fool them, which some people are.)
Most of my references were never contacted either, but once or twice it actually happened. Once I was actually contacted as a reference though, and it seemed like the only way they were going to get anything regarding poor moral character or psychological disorders from their questions was if I actively chose to spill the beans (answering honestly wouldn't have done it). Of course, no one puts down references that they know have an axe to grind.
From what I've heard, employers have a tendency to not say anything bad about former employees in order to avoid lawsuits, even when the employee was fired for cause. There might be a reason few people bother to contact references/employers.
Data on the accuracy of psych screening is exactly what I was looking for. I've never heard of a double blind experiment on the subject. I have heard, in the Pillar comment section, of priests who coach SSA men to get them past the screening.
But a psych screening for potential abusers is actually trying to do something more difficult: find the people who might, at some point in the future, *become* abusers. Perhaps of college students or 16-17-year-olds rather than young children. At that point they don't actually have a psychological disorder, but merely a moral disorder, and those can be acquired later in life.
Is there any hard evidence that psychological screening has a high success rate in catching pedophiles and men inclined to abuse post-pubescent minors or vulnerable adults?
I've heard this kind of suggestion before, and I'm not really a wide reader of psychology studies, so I could easily miss it. But I also recall a major factor in moving offending priests around being the assurance of psychologists that they had cured the pedophile and made him perfectly safe.
The Church shouldn't put all her eggs in one basket, in any case. Especially not when she's still having so much trouble getting rid of abusers that have been identified.
A good Pillar article/series would be talking to vocation directors and psychologists who screen candidates to see what the normal procedures are, how consistent they are, what responses/interventions are normally made in response to concerning results, etc. Probably would have to get most of them off them off the record... but I am certain Ed, JD, & Co. could do it.
They might have to be somewhat cagey about the details of the procedures, but yeah, that would be a great article.
I often wonder about calling references - I can't recall that for any job or position I have held, including volunteering so when I was getting my clearances, that my listed references or even previous employers were actually contacted. I suppose someone with a serious ax to grind (who perhaps has major issues of their own) could spoil it, but you could get a lot of useful information this way that isn't the kind of thing you could hide on a formal application or even in an interview (or psych screening if you're savvy enough to fool them, which some people are.)
Most of my references were never contacted either, but once or twice it actually happened. Once I was actually contacted as a reference though, and it seemed like the only way they were going to get anything regarding poor moral character or psychological disorders from their questions was if I actively chose to spill the beans (answering honestly wouldn't have done it). Of course, no one puts down references that they know have an axe to grind.
From what I've heard, employers have a tendency to not say anything bad about former employees in order to avoid lawsuits, even when the employee was fired for cause. There might be a reason few people bother to contact references/employers.
Data on the accuracy of psych screening is exactly what I was looking for. I've never heard of a double blind experiment on the subject. I have heard, in the Pillar comment section, of priests who coach SSA men to get them past the screening.
But a psych screening for potential abusers is actually trying to do something more difficult: find the people who might, at some point in the future, *become* abusers. Perhaps of college students or 16-17-year-olds rather than young children. At that point they don't actually have a psychological disorder, but merely a moral disorder, and those can be acquired later in life.