Discriminant Factors for Adolescent Sexual Offending: On the Usefulness of Considering both Victim Age and Sibling Incest
Référence bibliographique 
Joyal, Christian C., Carpentier, Julie et Martin, Caroline. 2016. «Discriminant Factors for Adolescent Sexual Offending: On the Usefulness of Considering both Victim Age and Sibling Incest ». Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 54, p. 10-22.
Intentions : «The first goal of this study was to further investigate the pertinence of considering the age of the victim to describe subgroups of JSO [juvenile sexual offender], particularly by including the mixed-type category where offenders have both children and peer/adult victims. […] A second goal ofthis study was to determine the added value, if any, of considering the family relation with the victim in addition to the age of the victim as a factor.» (p. 12)
Échantillon/Matériau : «Data for the current study were obtained by reanalyzing a database described in details in Carpentier, Leclerc, and Proulx (2011). […] The sample was composed of 351 adolescents who were assessed between 1992 and 2002 relatively to hands-on sexual offenses against children, peers, and/or adults.» (p. 13)
Type de traitement des données : Analyse statistique
«[I]t proved useful to isolate incest cases because the magnitude of differences was generally stronger when JSO of extra-familial children were compared with JSO of extra-familial peers/adults. In opposition the victim age factor lost its discriminative value among sibling incest JSO. That is, no significant differences were found on any dependent variables besides victim gender when comparing sibling incest JSO of children and sibling incest JSO of peers (all effect sizes for these comparisons were statistically and clinically null). Second, as previously proposed by Tidefors and colleagues (2010), a consideration for sibling incest proved to be useful by itself. Multivariate analyses confirmed, in line with hypothesis 4, that sibling incest JSO were more likely to have suffered from sexual and physical child abuse than both JSO with extra-familial child victims and JSO with extra-familial peer victims, although the difference for sexual abuse with the latter subgroup was not significant after the Bonferroni corrections (p = .02), and the effect size was only approaching significance (.16). Therefore, our study suggests that the offender’s own childhood victimization is more strongly related to the family relation factor than the age of the victim. Nearly half of sibling incest JSO were victims of physical and/or sexual childhood abuse.» (p. 19-20)