A Meta-analysis Comparing Male

Adolescents Who Have Sexually Offended

Against Intrafamilial Versus Extrafamilial
Victims

Frederica M. Martijn, Elisabeth

J. Leroux, Kelly M. Babchishin & Michael
C. Seto

Clinical Child and Family Psychology

Review

ISSN 1096-4037

Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev

DOI 10.1007/s10567-020-00320-6

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC, part of
Springer Nature. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12
months after official publication or later and
provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is
inserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-020-00320-6

A Meta‑analysis Comparing Male Adolescents Who Have Sexually

Offended Against Intrafamilial Versus Extrafamilial Victims
Frederica M. Martijn1,2   · Elisabeth J. Leroux3 · Kelly M. Babchishin1 · Michael C. Seto1

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
This meta-analysis examined whether theoretically and clinically relevant differences exist between male adolescents who
have sexually offended against intrafamilial victims (AIV) and male adolescents who have sexually offended against extra-
familial victims (AEV). A total of 26 independent samples (8 published and 18 unpublished) that compared a total of 2169
AIV and 2852 AEV were analyzed. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that categorizing male adolescents who
commit sexual offenses based on their relationship to victims is a meaningful distinction. We found that AIV presented
with greater atypical sexual interests, increased sexual regulation issues, more severe family dysfunction, more extensive
childhood maltreatment histories, and greater internalizing psychopathology than AEV. Conversely, AEV presented with
more indicators of antisociality than AIV, suggesting that extrafamilial sexual offending might fit better with a generalist
explanation of adolescent sexual offending. Findings highlight the value of assessing family dysfunction and maltreatment
history, sexual development and regulation, and general delinquency factors to better understand adolescents who have
committed a sexual offense.

Keywords  Incest · Adolescents · Sex offending · Intrafamilial victims · Extrafamilial victims

Introduction of adolescent sexual offenses committed in North America

Despite making up only 5–10% of the population in Western
countries (Eurostat 2019; U.S. Census Bureau 2018), it is
estimated that male adolescents between 12 and 17 years
old commit approximately 20% of police reported sexual
offenses (Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Sek-
sueel Geweld tegen Kinderen 2018; Planty et  al. 2013;
U.S. Department of Justice 2009), often against younger
children (Ueda 2017). Moreover, approximately a quarter
Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this
article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1056​7-020-00320​-6) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Elisabeth J. Leroux
elisabethleroux@cmail.carleton.ca
1
Present Address: University of Ottawa Institute of Mental
Health Research, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa,
ON K1Z 7K4, Canada
2
Leiden University, Rapenburg 70, 2311 EZ Leiden,
Zuid‑Holland, The Netherlands
3
Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa,
ON K1S 5B6, Canada
are against a relative (i.e., against intrafamilial victims;
U.S. Department of Justice 2009; Varma and Leroux 2019).
Despite this, we know relatively little about how adolescents
who commit sexual offenses against intrafamilial victims
(AIV) differ from adolescents who commit sexual offenses
against extrafamilial victims (AEV). This meta-analysis was
conducted to examine theoretical and clinical factors dis-
tinguishing intrafamilial and extrafamilial male adolescent
sexual offending, in order to highlight potential avenues to
improve theory, prevention, assessment, and intervention. As
almost all research about adult and adolescent sexual offend-
ing has focused on males, this meta-analysis by necessity
also focuses on male adolescents.
Explaining Adolescent Sexual Offending
Theories about sexual offending generally emphasize atypi-
cal sexual interests and antisociality as individual-level
explanations for both the onset and persistence of sexual
offending (e.g., Finkelhor 1984; Hanson and Morton-
Bourgon 2005; Seto 2019). Atypical sexual interests refer

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
to paraphilias such as pedophilia (a sexual attraction to
prepubescent children, as defined by the American Psychi-
atric Association 2013) as well as excessive sexual preoc-
cupations that can motivate sexual offending. Antisociality
refers to a propensity to engage in antisocial behavior, and is
typically operationalized in reference to specific personality
traits (e.g., impulsivity and callousness), specific attitudes
and beliefs (e.g., that people can do what they want if they
have the will), and a willingness to take physical and social
risks. Individuals who are high in atypical sexual interests
or antisociality are more likely to sexually offend when they
have opportunities to do so, and those who are high in both
are at the greatest risk (Seto 2019).
Adolescents who have committed a sexual offense
(ASOs) are different from adolescents who have commit-
ted a non-sexual offense (ANSOs) because ASOs consist-
ently score higher on measures reflecting atypical sexual
interests and score lower on measures reflecting antisociality
compared to ANSOs (Seto and Lalumière 2010). Research
considering victim age further distinguishes between ASOs
who commit a sexual offense against a child and ASOs who
commit a sexual offense against a peer. In general, ASOs
with child victims score higher on measures reflecting atypi-
cal sexual interests and lower on antisociality than ASOs
with peer victims (Leroux et al. 2016; Ueda 2017).
Intrafamilial Sexual Offending
In addition to victim age, a potentially important distinguish-
ing characteristic to consider for ASOs is relationship to the
victim (Seto 2018). Intrafamilial sexual offending is a puz-
zling phenomenon. Given time spent together and proximity
in nuclear families, there is plenty of opportunity for incest
to occur if someone is motivated to engage in such behav-
ior (Cyr et al. 2002; Krienert and Walsh 2011). Yet, incest
is only reported to occur in a small minority of families,
with research suggesting a prevalence rate of approximately
10% in siblings (Pullman 2018). The likelihood of incest
is theorized to be constrained by incest taboos and incest
avoidance. Incest taboo is a concept rooted in sociologi-
cal research and refers to universal cultural rules and norms
that discourage sexual behavior among close relatives (Wolf
2014). Incest avoidance is a related concept rooted in evo-
lutionary psychology and biology and refers to the evolved
avoidance within humans and [other] animals of sexual
behavior with close relatives, as doing so would lead to the
negative fitness effects of inbreeding depression (Charles-
worth and Willis 2009). For incest to occur, someone has to
act against both incest taboos and incest avoidance. Trans-
gressing these mechanisms can be facilitated either by
having weaker taboos or avoidance, or by having motiva-
tions that are strong enough to overpower these inhibitions.
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Research has just started exploring these hypotheses about
incest (see Pullman et al. 2019; Seto 2018).
While atypical sexual interests and antisociality are
considered the main risk factors for adolescent sexual
offending, especially when paired with victim access
opportunities, these factors may not adequately explain
adolescent sexual offending against intrafamilial victims.
A meta-analysis considering victim relatedness found
that adults who commit sexual offenses against intrafa-
milial victims generally score lower on measures of atypi-
cal sexual interests and antisociality compared to adults
who commit sexual offenses against extrafamilial victims
(Seto et al. 2015). A second meta-analysis by Pullman
et al. (2017) found that adults who offended against bio-
logically related victims tended to be similar or lower on
measures of atypical sexual interests and antisociality than
those who offended against sociolegally related victims
(Pullman et al. 2017). However, to date, there is limited
empirical evidence regarding differences between adoles-
cents who commit intrafamilial versus extrafamilial sexual
offenses.
Basis for Adolescent‑Specific Research
While the meta-analyses by Seto et al. (2015) and Pull-
man et al. (2017) comparing adults who have committed
intrafamilial versus extrafamilial sexual offenses provide
an empirical starting point to expect a distinction based on
victim relatedness to be relevant to ASOs, we must be cau-
tious in extrapolating findings from adults to adolescents
(Letourneau and Miner 2005). First, the relationship to the
victim is usually different for adults and adolescents. When
adults commit intrafamilial sexual offenses it is most often
against biological daughters or stepdaughters, whereas
adolescents typically commit intrafamilial sexual offenses
against younger siblings (see Seto 2018). Second, research
about adolescents must consider the developmental context
within which sexual offending occurs (Seto and Lalumière
2010). For example, parental and other family-of-origin fac-
tors are more proximal factors for adolescents who commit
sexual offenses compared to adults (Aquilino 2006; Lindell
and Campione-Barr 2017), whereas intimate partner rela-
tionship factors, substance use, and access to children are
more proximal factors for adults who commit sexual offenses
(Seto 2018). To account for the importance of familial fac-
tors for adolescent behavior broadly, familial dysfunction
indicators, including childhood maltreatment history, were
prioritized in the current meta-analysis comparing adoles-
cents who offend against intrafamilial victims (AIV) with
adolescents who offend against extrafamilial victims (AEV).
Doing so also aligns with many theoretical and clinical
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
models regarding the onset of intrafamilial sexual offending,
most of which implicate family disorganization and child-
hood maltreatment factors (e.g., Rudd and Herzberger 1999;
Smith and Israel 1987; Thornton et al. 2008).
Indicator Domains
As the basis of our analysis, we drew on theories about intra-
familial sexual offending among adults, empirical evidence
regarding differences between adults who have committed a
sexual offense against intrafamilial versus extrafamilial vic-
tims, and empirical evidence regarding global differences
between ASOs and ANSOs. Taken together, these bodies of
work informed the five core domains we examined: (1) sexu-
ality; (2) antisociality and offense characteristics; (3) family
functioning and childhood maltreatment; (4) psychopathol-
ogy; and (5) psychoeducational and social functioning.
Sexuality
Indicators related to both atypical and typical sexual inter-
ests and behaviors were included because they are both
theoretically and clinically relevant factors. Atypical sex-
ual interests are implicated in many etiological theories of
sexual offending (e.g., Finkelhor 1984; Seto 2019; Ward
and Siegert 2002). There is also a relatively robust empiri-
cal literature regarding the relationship between atypical
sexual interests—primarily sexual interest in prepubescent
children—and sexual offending recidivism among adults
(Hanson and Morton-Bourgon 2005; McPhail et al. 2019).
There is also some evidence to suggest that atypical sexual
interest in prepubescent children is associated with victim
type selection (i.e., child-aged victim versus peer-aged vic-
tim) and the use of child sexual exploitation material among
ASOs (Leroux et al. 2016; Davis and Knight 2019). The
sexuality domain also includes indicators related to sexual
preoccupation, sexual regulation problems, and general
sexual behaviors.
Antisociality and Offense Characteristics
Indicators that reflect antisociality and specific offense char-
acteristics were included because they are theoretically and
clinically relevant (Cottle et al. 2001; McCann and Lussier
2008). ASOs are, on average, lower risk in terms of anti-
sociality compared to ANSOs (Seto and Lalumière 2010);
however, there is evidence of heterogeneity within ASOs in
terms of antisociality as well. For example, the findings from
Daversa and Knight (2007) regarding ASOs who sexually
offend against children suggest a subgroup who are primar-
ily explained by psychopathic traits and general antisoci-
ality. Further, although the base rate of sexual recidivism
among ASOs is low (ranging from 7 to 11%), the base rate of
general recidivism is much higher (ranging from 40 to 50%;
Caldwell 2011; Rojas and Olver 2019; Viljoen et al. 2012).
Given the evidence of heterogeneity in terms of antisocial-
ity within ASOs and given evidence that adults who offend
against extrafamilial victims are more antisocial—on aver-
age—than those who offend against intrafamilial victims, we
would expect differences between AIV and AEV. This is an
important domain to explore given the relationship between
antisociality indicators and the likelihood of future sexual
and general offending (Cottle et al. 2001).
Specific offense characteristics (e.g., degree of intrusive-
ness) were also examined given that, on average, ASOs who
have offended against males, younger children, and multiple
children, are more likely to show evidence of atypical sexual
interests towards prepubescent children (Seto et al. 2003).
Further, there is some evidence that having multiple victims,
and other offense related details (e.g., use of a weapon, under
the influence of substances) predict sexual recidivism among
ASOs (McCann amd Lussier 2008).
Family Functioning and Childhood Maltreatment
Indicators that reflect disorganized and/or chaotic family
contexts were included because they are theoretically rel-
evant from a socio-ecological and multi-systemic perspec-
tive (Bronfenbrenner 1979). The family system plays a cen-
tral role during the developmental period of adolescence
and is likely an important nexus for intrafamilial sexual
offending (Borduin and Schaeffer 2002). Further, there is
a well-established association between family dysfunction
and general delinquency among adolescents (e.g., Murray
and Farrington 2010), and families need to be involved in
evidence-based treatment for ASOs (Letourneau et al. 2009).
To date, there has been limited empirical investigation into
the role of familial factors in the onset or maintenance of
intrafamilial or extrafamilial adolescent sexual offending.
However, we expect group differences on the premise that
intrafamilial sexual offending necessarily occurs within the
family system. It is therefore likely there are unique familial
factors associated with this form of sexual offending, com-
pared to extrafamilial sexual offending. As such, the fam-
ily functioning indicators chosen broadly reflect a nested
family-systems approach, and include family-level factors
(e.g., sexualized familial environment), parent-level factors
(e.g., parental substance use), and individual-level factors
in a family context (e.g., history of being a victim of sexual
abuse, when a majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by
relatives).
Childhood maltreatment indicators, specifically those
related to childhood sexual abuse, were included as they
are implicated in several explanations of sexual offending
(e.g., sexually abused-sexual abuser hypothesis; Seto and
Lalumière 2010). There is also a large body of empirical
13
 Author's personal copy
research that shows being a victim of childhood sexual abuse
is associated with an increased likelihood of committing a
sexual offense (e.g., Jespersen et al. 2009; Seto and Lalumi-
ère 2010). Empirical research also suggests that any form
of childhood maltreatment is associated with an increased
likelihood of committing sexually coercive behaviors, even
in twin-control designs (Forsman et al. 2012).
Psychopathology
Indicators reflecting psychopathology were primarily included
because they are clinically relevant to the assessment and
treatment of sexual offending. These indicators were also
included because they are relevant to theories of adolescent
sexual offending that suggest this behavior can be the result
of maladaptive coping to emotional distress (Marshall and
Marshall 2000). Empirical research shows that ASOs typi-
cally report significantly more psychopathology compared
to ANSOs, specifically regarding anxiety and self-esteem
(Seto and Lalumière 2010). Given psychopathology among
adolescents is commonly conceptualized along externalizing
and internalizing dimensions within clinical psychology, the
indicators included in the psychopathology domains also fol-
lowed this distinction (Cicchetti and Rogosch 2002; Forns
et al. 2018). Externalizing and internalizing problems were
defined in reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5; American Psychi-
atric Association 2013). Relevant indicators included either a
formal DSM-5 diagnosis (e.g., conduct disorder, social anxi-
ety disorder), or the presence of specific traits of psychologi-
cal disorders (e.g., anxiety, impulsivity, attention problems).
Psychoeducational and Social Functioning
Indicators reflecting psychoeducational and social function-
ing were included because they are clinically relevant from a
socio-ecological and multi-systemic perspective (Brackney
and Karabenick 1995; Bronfenbrenner 1979; Suldo et al.
2011). The school system and peers are the two other most
central systems—outside of the familial system—during the
developmental period of adolescence (Smith et al. 2016).
Further, there is some evidence among adults who commit
sexual offenses that those with intrafamilial victims have
significantly lower IQ scores compared to those with extra-
familial victims (Seto et al. 2015). Differences in psychoedu-
cational functioning in AIV and AEV may be important, as
there is extensive research showing an association between
lower IQ and criminality among adults and adolescents (e.g.,
Cottle et al. 2001; Ogilvie et al. 2011).
Indicators reflecting social functioning were also included
because adolescence is a critical period for the development of
the necessary social skills required to establish and maintain peer
friendships and intimate relationships (Aquilino 2006; Heinrich
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
and Gullone 2006). Poor social functioning is also implicated
in explanations of adolescent sexual offending. Specifically, it is
theorized that deficits in social functioning may stunt the forma-
tion of age-appropriate peer and intimate relationships, leading
adolescents who are unable to form such relationships to seek
out younger children or non-consensual interactions to fulfill
these needs (Gunby and Woodhams 2010; Miner et al. 2016).
Current Study
Research comparing AIV to AEV is sparse, even though the
field of adolescent sexual offending has identified the compar-
ison of AIV and AEV as a priority for over 30 years (Becker
et al. 1986; Joyal et al. 2016; Latzman et al. 2011; Tidefors
et al. 2010; Seto 2018; Worling 1995). As such, we conducted
a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data to iden-
tify whether AIV and AEV differ on relevant theoretical and
clinical factors. We based our hypotheses on theories about
intrafamilial sexual offending and empirical evidence regard-
ing differences between adults who have committed a sexual
offense against intrafamilial versus extrafamilial victims and
ASOs and ANSOs. We thus predicted AIV would differ from
AEV by having fewer indicators of atypical sexual interests
and antisociality, and more severe offense characteristics. We
also predicted AIV would differ from AEV by presenting with
more problems in terms of family functioning, childhood mal-
treatment, psychopathology, psychoeducational functioning,
and social functioning indicators.
Methods
Selection of Studies
PsychINFO, PubMed, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and
Google Scholar were searched for studies comparing ado-
lescents who had sexually offended against intrafamilial
victims (AIV) to adolescents who had sexually offended
against extrafamilial victims (AEV) using the following
key terms: adolescen*, juvenile*, child*, teen*, young adult,
sex* offen*, sex* aggres*, sex* delinquen*. Additional arti-
cles were found by reviewing the reference lists of the ini-
tially identified articles. The initial online search ended on
January 18, 2018 and was updated on March 11, 2020. The
online search (see Figure S1 in the Supplemental Material)
yielded eight published papers1 in which AIV were explicitly
1
  The data received in 2018 from Dr. Van Vugt were later used in
a paper comparing AIV to AEV that was published in March 2020
(Van Vugt and Garofalo 2020). However, the variables reported were
defined differently than those provided for the meta-analysis. As such,
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
compared to AEV on descriptive characteristics. We con-
sequently contacted 27 authors from the online search who
reported any information on familial relationships in their
published papers yet did not explicitly compare ASOs on
the basis of having intrafamilial or extrafamilial victims. We
asked authors whether they could provide us with raw data
or computed output to calculate effect sizes comparing intra-
familial and extrafamilial groups. We also contacted 185
authors from the online search who reported any descrip-
tive characteristics of their sample of ASOs, even if they
did not explicitly report familial relationship variables to
ask if they could provide raw data or computed output to
calculate effect sizes comparing AIV and AEV. We received
18 unique datasets (containing either raw data or computed
output), and one dataset that supplemented a published
study. We received the last dataset on June 29, 2018. All
provided datasets have been previously used in publications
in peer-reviewed journals reporting other comparisons; that
is, they did not report the AIV versus AEV comparison.
Overall, this meta-analysis includes data from 26 unique,
non-overlapping samples.
Aggregation of Findings
To be included in this meta-analysis, the sample had to include
a group of male adolescents who had sexually offended against
an intrafamilial victim and a group of male adolescents who
had sexually offended against an extrafamilial victim and
include sufficient information to calculate Cohen’s d effect
sizes for the variables of interest. We restricted the meta-anal-
ysis to male adolescents as almost all research about adolescent
sexual offending that would be included in this meta-analysis
has focused on males. Because the current meta-analysis
includes domains derived from male-specific research, we do
not know whether theories or evidence generalize to female
adolescents. This is consistent with the large body of literature
regarding the importance of gender-specific research for female
offending generally (e.g., Steffensmeier and Allan 1996), and
female sexual offending specifically (e.g., Gannon and Cortoni
2010). As such, we excluded Willard (2014) completely from
this meta-analysis, as it was impossible to disentangle effect
sizes for female and male adolescents in this study. Two raw
datasets contained data from female adolescents, which we
deleted before calculating the effect sizes.
Each study was coded by the first and second authors using
a manual with a list of target variables and explicit coding
rules. Two sets of information were coded for each sample:
sample descriptors (i.e., information describing the sample)
and sample effect sizes (i.e., all effect sizes calculated from
Footnote 1 (continued)
we chose to include the data that were originally provided as they
aligned with our Coding Manual.
a specific sample). Practice coding was completed using the
first six samples, and then both coders coded the remaining 20
samples independently and generated consensus ratings after
coding independently. Only variables with effect sizes coded
in at least three separate samples were included in this meta-
analysis. Some effect sizes were at different levels, for example,
drug abuse and alcohol abuse both fall under the superordinate
variable of substance abuse. When presented in the tables, the
weighted effect sizes of the superordinate variables are pre-
sented, including weighted average N (rounded total value
presented). In the tables, subordinate categories are indicated
with indentations. The Coding Manual including a full list of
the coding schemes and specific variables and included in each
domain is available upon request and as Online Supplemental
Material.
Inter‑rater Analysis
Interrater reliability was calculated for 20 out of 26 samples
that were independently coded. We conducted two sets of
inter-rater reliability analyses: one set for the moderator vari-
ables and study descriptors (i.e., at the sample level), and one
set for the dependent variables (i.e., at the effect size level).
The mean kappa value for the 22 categorical study descrip-
tors was M = 0.85, Mdn= 0.92 (range from 0.35 to 1.00).
The categorical study descriptor that had a kappa of 0.35
was the descriptor “AEV with some related victims: yes/no/
unknown”; however, the overall percent agreement on this
descriptor was 86.4%. The next lowest kappa was 0.63. The
mean intraclass correlations (ICC) for 46 continuous study
descriptors were M = 0.95, Mdn= 1.00 (range from 0.43 to
1.00). The continuous study descriptor that scored 0.43 was
the percentage of AIV with some unrelated victims. This con-
tinuous descriptor had an ICC of 1 after deleting the largest
discrepancy. The next lowest ICC was 0.65. In short, there
was a high level of overall agreement on the coded descriptor
variables.
The reliability analysis for the dependent variables was
based on 426 effect sizes from 20 out of 26 samples. There
was a high level of agreement for all effect sizes coded
across samples. The absolute ICC based on two raters was
0.99 (n = 426). A total of 29 out of 455 effect sizes (6.4%)
were calculated by one coder but not the other. After coding
independently for inter-rater analyses, disagreements were
discussed, and a consensus was reached.
Analytical Strategy
Effect Size
The effect size indicator used was the standardized mean
difference Cohen’s d, defined as follows: d = (M1 − M2)/Sw,
where M1 and M2 were the group means, and Sw was the
13
 Author's personal copy
pooled-within SD (Hasselblad and Hedges 1995). For cate-
gorical variables Cohen’s d was calculated using a 2 × 2 fre-
quency table, using the Sánchez-Meca et al. (2003) equation.
A positive d indicates that AEV had more characteristics
that are considered problematic (e.g., antisocial attitudes),
statistically rare (e.g., learning disorder), or risk relevant
(e.g., family disruption) than AIV. Cohen (1988) suggested
a d of 0.20 is considered a small, 0.50 is a moderate, and
0.80 is a large effect. For benchmark reference, the median
absolute magnitude of all main effect sizes of Seto and Lalu-
mière (2010)’s meta-analysis comparing ASOs with ANSOs
was d = 0.13 and the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were,
respectively, d = 0.07, d = 0.13, and d = 0.26, with a range of
d = 0.00 (rounded) to 0.67.
Meta‑analysis
Meta-analysis is a statistical method to aggregate weighted
findings from multiple samples, where the aggregation of
findings reflects a more accurate measure of the true effects
of a particular variable of interest than individual sam-
ples. Findings across samples were aggregated using both
fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis (Borenstein
et al. 2009). Fixed-effect meta-analysis produces estimates
restricted to the particular set of samples that are included in
the meta-analysis, whereas random-effects estimate effects
for the population from which the sample of studies is drawn
from. When variability across samples is low (Q < degrees
of freedom), fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses
produce identical results. While both fixed-effect and ran-
dom-effects results are presented, we focused on the fixed-
effect model for interpretation of the results as all the results
are based on a small number of samples (k < 30) and the
between-study variability component necessary for random-
effects analyses (i.e., T2, tau) becomes imprecise as the num-
ber of samples decreases (Schulze 2007).
We used Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics to test the degree
of heterogeneity across samples. Cochran’s Q statistic tests
whether variability across samples in an effect size is larger
than what would be expected by chance. The I2 value is akin
to a measure of effect size variability across samples and
indicates the variability due to true heterogeneity as opposed
to chance. The I2 statistic can be compared across analyses
whereas Q cannot when the number of samples (k) varies
across analyses. As a general heuristic, I2 values of 25%
are considered low, 50% moderate, and 75% high variability
(Higgins et al. 2003).
We assessed for outliers to ensure single samples did not
contribute undue weight in the aggregated results. A sam-
ple was considered an outlier when the overall variability
(Q) was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and if subsequent
analyses with the outlier (i.e., the sample with the most
extreme weight and most extreme effect size d) removed
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
accounted for > 50% of the total variance of Q (see Hanson
and Bussière 1998). When outliers were identified (for effect
sizes with at least 3 samples), results with and without the
outlier(s) are presented in the tables, and the main interpreta-
tion is focused on the result with the outliers removed.
Moderator Analyses
When there was a reasonable amount of variability in an
aggregated effect size (I2 > 20%) and sufficient samples
reporting on the moderator of interest (6 for continuous mod-
erator, 2 for each level of a categorical moderator), moderator
analyses were conducted. Fixed-effect meta-regression was
used to examine the extent to which a continuous modera-
tor variable influenced the magnitude or direction of group
differences, whereas between-level Q statistic was used for
a categorical moderator variable (Borenstein et al. 2009).
A statistically significant meta-regression and between-level
Q-statistic analysis indicates that the moderator explains a
significant portion of the variability across samples, above
what would be expected by sampling error alone.
Based on prior research (Seto et al. 2015; Pullman et al.
2017), the between-study continuous characteristics for
moderator analysis considered were: proportion of AIV
with both intra- and extrafamilial victims; proportion of
AIV with sociolegal victims exclusively; proportion of AIV
with child victims exclusively; proportion of AEV with
child victims exclusively; proportion of AIV with male vic-
tims exclusively; and proportion of AEV with male victims
exclusively. The moderator “proportion of AIV with both
intra- and extrafamilial victims” could not be meaningfully
analyzed because of the restricted range of the effect sizes
(8 out of 10 studies reported that ‘10–20%’ of their sample
had both intra- and extrafamilial victims) and was therefore
excluded from further analysis.
A statistically significant continuous moderator means
that, as the proportion of the moderator increases or
decreases, the magnitude of the difference between AIV and
AEV also increases or decreases. As an intuitive example,
suppose we find the following: (1) the average victim age of
AIV is younger than AEV; and (2) this effect is significantly
moderated in the positive direction (i.e., the moderator has a
positive Z score) by proportion of child victims in AIV. This
means that the magnitude of difference between AIV with
higher proportions of child victims and AEV is larger than
the magnitude of the difference between AIV with lower
proportions of child victims and AEV. Essentially, as the
number of child victims across AIV samples increases, AIV
victims are increasingly younger on average compared to
AEV (i.e., the difference widens).
Finally, we assessed publication bias (i.e., published
versus unpublished effect sizes) as a categorical modera-
tor. Publication bias generally consists of two types: a bias
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
toward only publishing studies with significant results (also
known as the file drawer issue or selection bias) and a bias to
selectively report significant results (also known as p-hacking
or inflation bias), both leading to an overestimation of sig-
nificant results. Integrating unpublished results likely gives a
truer reflection of the estimated differences between groups
(Head et al. 2015; Rothstein et al. 2005). It might be that
publication status influences the magnitude of an effect size:
for example, we might find that published studies report more
extensive maltreatment histories than non-published studies.
Results
Sample Description
The group size of AIV ranged from 13 to 314 (M = 83.4,
SD= 75.3, Mdn= 65.5, total N = 2169), and the group size
of AEV ranged from 14 to 438 (M = 109.7, SD= 108.8,
Mdn = 76.0, total N = 2852). The average age of the total
sample was 15.0 (SD= 1.6), with an average of 14.7
(SD= 1.6) for AIV, and 15.1 (SD= 1.6) for AEV. Although
all datasets have been used in publications in peer-reviewed
journals, only 16% (n = 135/845) of effect sizes were coded
directly from published papers that explicitly reported group
comparisons of AIV and AEV. The remaining 84% of the
effect sizes (n = 710/845) were calculated from the raw data
or outputs provided to us by the authors of the primary stud-
ies. Papers that explicitly reported comparisons of AIV and
AEV were published between 1995 and 2017 (Mdn= 2010).
All samples grouped adolescents based on victim infor-
mation from official arrests, charges, or convictions. Some
samples also grouped adolescents based on substantiated
victim information from child protection or welfare services
(30.8%; k = 8), self-report (3.8%; k = 1), or other information
(7.7%; k = 2). Most samples came from forensic assessment
clinics or outpatient treatment centers (46.2%; k = 12). Over
half of both AIV and AEV (61.5%, k = 16) were in some
form of post-adjudication treatment. More detailed informa-
tion can be found in Table S1 of the Supplemental Material.
Victim Information
Most samples (73.1%, k = 19) included information on
the proportional composition of intrafamilial and extrafa-
milial victims of AIV: 12 samples reported 100% exclu-
sively intrafamilial victims, 4 samples reported between
80 and 99% exclusively intrafamilial victims, and 3 sam-
ples reported between 68 and 79% exclusively intrafamilial
victims (M = 93.2%, Mdn = 100%). All samples reported
that AEV consisted of exclusively extrafamilial victims,
except for one sample with missing information. Half of
the samples (k = 13) had information on the proportion of
biological and sociolegal relatedness of intrafamilial victims,
with 7 samples reporting 100% biological victims, and 6
samples reporting between 60 and 99% biological victims
(M = 92.2%, Mdn= 100%). Twelve samples further speci-
fied this relationship: 4 samples reported that victims were
exclusively full/half siblings; 3 samples reported that victims
were a mix of full/half siblings and extended family; and 5
samples reported that victims were a mix of full/half, step/
foster/adopted siblings, and extended family. Eleven studies
(42.3%) had information on known/unknown status of the
victims of AEV, reporting that on average 18.8% of AEV
had committed a sexual offense against a stranger victim.
Twenty samples (76.9%) reported detailed information
on the victim age of AIV. Averaged across these 20 sam-
ples, 80.8% of AIV had a child victim (i.e., 11 years old
or younger), 9.7% had a peer-aged victim (i.e., between
12–17 years old), 2.0% had an adult victim (i.e., 18 years
old or older), and 6.7% had victims in multiple age groups.
Twenty-one studies (80.8%) reported on victim age of AEV.
Averaged across these samples, 54.6% of AEV had a child
victim, 32.7% had a peer-aged victim, 8.4% had an adult
victim, and 3.7% had victims in multiple age groups. Most of
the samples included detailed information on gender of the
victim (73.1%; k = 19). Averaged across samples a majority
had exclusively female victims (AIV 59.2%, AEV 66.4%),
followed by exclusively male victims (AIV 22.3%, AEV
23.5%), and last a mix of both female and male victims (AIV
17.9%, AEV 9.7%). More detailed victim information can be
found in Table S2 of the Supplemental Material.
Indicator Domains
Forest plots that present the individual effect sizes and weighted
effect size can be found in Figures S2–S9 of the Supplemental
Materials. Statistically significant effect sizes, i.e., effect sizes
for which the confidence intervals do not cross zero, will be
discussed first, followed by discussion of other effect sizes.
Sexuality
Table 1 presents the comparisons of AIV to AEV on all
sexuality indicators, with comparisons based on 3–7 stud-
ies (N ranging from 319 to 1405). Moderate to large group
differences were found for global atypical sexual interests
(d = − 0.30), and specifically sexual interest with children
(d = − 0.22), with AIV having more atypical sexual interests
compared to AEV. These comparisons are based on self-
reported information (k = 4) and physiological measures
(i.e., penile plethysmography; k = 3). AIV also showed more
typical pornography use and more problems with sexual
regulation (d = − 0.26 and d = − 0.22) than AEV. The find-
ings were consistent across samples, with non-significant Q
statistics and I2 ranging from 0 to 34%. General sexuality
13
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Table 1  Comparing adolescents who have committed an offense against intrafamilial victims versus extrafamilial victims on sexuality indicators
Variables Fixed-effect Random-effects Q I2 N (k) Samplesb
d [95% CI] d [95% CI]

Sexuality indicators
 Global atypical sexual interests − 0.30 [− 0.44, -0.16] − 0.28 [− 0.45, − 0.11] 7.85 23.6 948 (7) 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, ­25+
  Sexual interest in children − 0.22 [− 0.42, − 0.01] − 0.22 [− 0.42, − 0.01] 1.59 0.0 478 (5) 14, 18, 19, 21, ­25+
 Atypical sexual attitudes 0.01 [− 0.13, 0.15] 0.01 [− 0.13, 0.15] 4.13 0.0 1245 (7) 1, 2, 10, 11, 16, 22, 25
 Pornography use − 0.26 [− 0.44, − 0.07] − 0.26 [− 0.51, − 0.01] 6.08 34.2 668 (5) 2, 11, 18, 21, 25
 Sexual regulation − 0.15 [− 0.27, − 0.03] − 0.18 [− 0.41, 0.05] 14.87* 59.7 1405 (7) 2, 4, 10, 12, 21, 22, 25
  Outlier removeda − 0.22 [− 0.35, − 0.09] − 0.26 [− 0.45, − 0.07] 7.44 32.8 1239 (6) 4, 10, 12, 21, 22, 25
  Sexual preoccupation − 0.09 [− 0.22, 0.05] − 0.09 [− 0.35, 0.16] 8.79 54.5 1138 (5) 2, 4, 10, 12, 21
 Problematic sexual behavior 0.12 [− 0.09, 0.34] 0.12 [− 0.09, 0.34] 1.24 0.0 598 (4) 10, 11, 21, 25
  Low sexual knowledge 0.22 [− 0.11, 0.54] 0.22 [− 0.11, 0.54] 0.03 0.0 444 (3) 10, 11, 25
 Conventional sexual experiences 0.02 [− 0.15, 0.18] 0.02 [− 0.23, 0.28] 10.81 53.8 1004 (6) 1, 10, 11, 18, 21, 25
  Previous sexual experience 0.04 [− 0.13, 0.22] 0.09 [− 0.19, 0.38] 10.62 52.9 960 (6) 1, 10, 11, 18, 21, 25
  Previous romantic relationship − 0.12 [− 0.45, 0.20] − 0.14 [− 0.51, 0.22] 2.29 12.5 319 (3) 11, 18, 25

A positive d indicates that adolescents with extrafamilial victims had more characteristics that were considered problematic (e.g., antisocial atti-
tudes), statistically rare (e.g., learning disorder), or risk relevant (e.g., family disruption) than adolescents with intrafamilial victims
Bolded values indicate that the group differences were statistically significant, p < 0.05. Indented variables with distinct labels represent subcat-
egories
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
a
 One outlier removed
b
 The corresponding references to the sample numbers can be found in the reference list. + Studies 10, 11, 21, and 25 based their assessment of
sexual interest on clinical judgment (structured interview or rating scale). Studies 14, 18, and 19 based their assessment of sexual interest on
penile plethysmography

variables indicated more problematic sexual behavior, lower
sexual knowledge, and fewer conventional sexual experi-
ences for AEV than for AIV, with statistically non-signifi-
cant and small to moderate effect sizes (d = 0.02–0.22).
Antisociality and Offense Characteristics
Table 2 presents the comparisons between AIV and AEV on
all antisociality indicators, with comparisons based on 4–18
samples (N ranging from 434 to 3420). Overall, AEV were
more antisocial compared to AIV, with higher scores on gen-
eral violence risk instruments (d = 0.19) and greater global
antisociality (d = 0.09). AEV also had more extensive previ-
ous general, violent, and non-sexual/non-violent (e.g., prop-
erty offense) offense histories than AIV (d = 0.19, d = 0.27,
and d = 0.36, respectively). The variability across studies for
any and violent offense histories was significant and moder-
ate, indicating that around 55% of the observed variability is
beyond what can be expected by sampling error alone. There
was no to small heterogeneity across studies for general vio-
lence risk instruments, non-sexual/non-violent offense histo-
ries (after removing an outlier), and global antisociality. The
other, statistically non-significant effect sizes followed the
same pattern of the antisociality domain. Effect sizes were
small to moderate, with AEV having more delinquent peers
(d = 0.15), more antisocial attitudes (d = 0.23), and higher
rates of general substance abuse, drug abuse, and alcohol
abuse (d = 0.07, d = 0.07, and d = 0.02, respectively.
 There was a
small and statistically non-significant difference between AIV
and AEV on number of victims (d = − 0.06). By definition,
adolescents with both intrafamilial and extrafamilial victims
were included in the AIV group. It is therefore possible victim
number was influenced by this categorization, as some AIV
would have multiple victims. As such, we conducted a post hoc
analysis restricting the comparison to AIV with exclusively
(100%) intrafamilial victims and AEV. This result was consist-
ent, with a small effect size of d = − 0.02.
Family Functioning and Childhood Maltreatment
Table 3 presents the comparisons of AIV to AEV on fam-
ily functioning, with comparisons based on 3–13 samples
(N ranging from 300 to 2693). Overall, AIV came from
more disturbed family environments, with moderate to
large effect sizes. AIV reported more overall family dys-
function (d = − 0.13), a higher prevalence of divorced par-
ents (d = − 0.13), more disruptions in parenting presence
(d = − 0.28), higher prevalence of foster care placement
(d = − 0.32), and a higher number of siblings (d = − 0.12).

13
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Table 2  Comparing adolescents who have committed an offense against intrafamilial victims versus extrafamilial victims on antisociality and
offense characteristics indicators
Variables Fixed-effect Random-effects Q I2 N (k) Samplesb
d [95% CI] d [95% CI]

Antisociality indicators
 Sexual violence risk − 0.04 [− 0.16, 0.08] − 0.07 [− 0.25, 0.12] 10.56 43.2 1227 (7) 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 19, 22
 General violence risk 0.19 [0.09, 0.29] 0.19 [0.09, 0.29] 1.85 0.0 1590 (4) 2, 12, 14, 22
 Any previous history 0.19 [0.11, 0.26] 0.22 [0.09, 0.35] 37.09** 56.9 3413 (17) 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26
  Any previous sexual − 0.01 [− 0.10, 0.09] 0.03 [− 0.15, 0.20] 25.63** 57.1 2640 (12) 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20,
offense 21, 22, 23, 26
  Any previous violent 0.27 [0.14, 0.39] 0.31 [0.10, 0.51] 21.58* 53.7 1904 (11) 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23,
offense 25, 26
  Any previous non-sexual/ 0.28 [0.16, 0.40] 0.30 [0.08, 0.53] 29.37*** 69.4 1723 (10) 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23,
non-violent offense 25, 26
  Outlier removeda 0.36 [0.24, 0.48] 0.36 [0.24, 0.49] 8.52 6.2 1541 (9) 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 25,
26
 Global antisociality 0.09 [0.01, 0.17] 0.10 [− 0.001, 0.21] 25.12 32.3 3420 (18) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15,
16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26
  Delinquent peers 0.15 [− 0.09, 0.38] 0.22 [− 0.17, 0.62] 6.12 51.0 536 (4) 1, 5, 11, 25
  Substance abuse 0.07 [− 0.02, 0.15] 0.08 [− 0.05, 0.21] 18.17 39.5 3028 (12) 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20,
21, 25, 26
  Drug abuse 0.07 [− 0.11, 0.25] 0.06 [− 0.15, 0.28] 4.16 27.9 820 (4) 1, 18, 21, 26
  Alcohol abuse 0.02 [− 0.15, 0.20] 0.02 [− 0.15, 0.20] 2.07 0.0 812 (4) 1, 18, 21, 26
  Antisocial attitudes 0.23 [− 0.01, 0.47] 0.23 [− 0.01, 0.47] 2.39 0.0 434 (4) 2, 11, 16, 25
Offense characteristics indicators
 Age at first offense − 0.21 [− 0.30, − 0.13] − 0.24 [− 0.41, − 0.07] 35.91*** 69.4 2387 (12) 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19,
20, 23, 24
 Victim age − 0.43 [− 0.50, − 0.36] − 0.58 [− 0.76, − 0.40] 63.04*** 79.4 2803 (14) 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18,
20, 21, 23, 25, 26
  Outlier removeda − 0.55 [− 0.63, − 0.47] − 0.61 [− 0.75, − 0.47] 26.52** 54.7 2784 (13) 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18,
20, 21, 23, 26
 Use of substances during 0.56 [0.22, 0.90] 0.56 [0.22, 0.90] 1.49 0.0 1043 (4) 9, 14, 15, 21
offense
 Degree of intrusiveness − 0.22 [− 0.34, -0.09] − 0.21 [− 0.51, 0.08]43.61*** 79.4 2002 (10) 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22,
25
  Outlier removeda − 0.36 [− 0.49, − 0.22] − 0.33 [− 0.53, − 0.14] 14.32 44.1 1846 (9) 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 15, 17, 21, 25
 Use of force during the 0.03 [− 0.07, 0.13] 0.06 [− 0.09, 0.21] 20.93 42.7 2701 (13) 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18,
offense 21, 22, 25, 26
 Number of victims − 0.06 [− 0.14, 0.01] − 0.09 [− 0.22, 0.05] 33.34** 58.0 3053 (15) 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17,
19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26
 Number of victims (AIV − 0.02 [− 0.13, 0.10] − 0.01 [0.15, 0.13] 6.98 14.1 1614 (7) 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15
with 100% intrafamilial
victims)

A positive d indicates that adolescents with extrafamilial victims had more characteristics that were considered problematic (e.g., antisocial atti-
tudes), statistically rare (e.g., learning disorder), or risk relevant (e.g., family disruption) than adolescents with intrafamilial victims
Bolded values indicate that the group differences were statistically significant, p < 0.05. Indented variables with distinct labels represent subcat-
egories
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
a
 One outlier removed
b
 The corresponding references to the sample numbers can be found in the reference list

13
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Table 3  Comparing adolescents who have committed an offense against intrafamilial victims versus extrafamilial victims on family functioning
and childhood maltreatment indicators
Variables Fixed-effect Random-effects Q I2 N (k) Samplesb
d [95% CI] d [95% CI]

Family functioning indicators

 Family dysfunction − 0.13 [− 0.23, − 0.04] − 0.16 [− 0.32, − 0.01] 20.68 42.0 2693 (13) 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18,
21, 23, 24, 25
  Divorce − 0.13 [− 0.25, -0.0005] − 0.16 [− 0.33, 0.01] 10.65 24.9 2007 (9) 6, 9, 10, 12, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25
 Parental disruptions − 0.19 [− 0.31, − 0.08] − 0.21 [− 0.44, 0.03] 30.64*** 73.9 1871 (9) 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22,
26
  Outlier removeda − 0.28 [− 0.40, − 0.16] − 0.28 [− 0.45, − 0.12] 11.98 41.6 1525 (8) 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 22, 26
  Foster care − 0.32 [− 0.51, − 0.12] − 0.32 [− 0.53, − 0.10] 4.54 11.9 796 (5) 10, 11, 20, 21, 26
 Number of siblings − 0.12 [− 0.23, − 0.01] − 0.25 [− 0.47, − 0.02] 13.66* 63.4 1463 (6) 11, 12, 18, 21, 24, 26
 Parental relationship − 0.08 [− 0.32, 0.15] 0.02 [− 0.45, 0.50] 5.56 64.0 300 (3) 4, 21, 12 
 Attachment 0.02 [− 0.17, 0.22] 0.03 [− 0.20, 0.26] 2.64 24.2 656 (3) 10, 18, 21
 Parental substance abuse − 0.07 [− 0.23, 0.09] − 0.07 [− 0.26, 0.13] 11.78 23.6 1347 (10) 6, 9, 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, 23,
25, 26
  Paternal substance abuse − 0.20 [− 0.48, 0.08] − 0.20 [− 0.48, 0.08] 0.08 0.0 306 (3) 9, 21, 26
 Parental criminal involve- 0.12 [− 0.09, 0.32] 0.06 [− 0.27, 0.39] 11.81* 57.7 766 (6) 3, 10, 18, 20, 21, 26
ment
 Parental psychological − 0.14 [− 0.36, 0.07] − 0.14 [− 0.36, 0.07] 4.94 0.0 980 (7) 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25
disorder
 Sexualized family environ- − 0.23 [− 0.49, 0.04] − 0.23 [− 0.52, 0.06] 2.24 10.7 491 (3) 1, 11, 25
ment
Childhood maltreatment indicators
 Global child maltreatment − 0.32 [− 0.39, − 0.25] − 0.32 [− 0.39, − 0.25] 17.78 0.0 3474 (21) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,
12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21,
22, 24, 25, 26
  Sexual abuse − 0.35 [− 0.44, − 0.27] − 0.35 [− 0.44, − 0.27] 14.50 0.0 2843 (20) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22,
24, 25, 26
  Sexual abuse by a rela- − 0.28 [− 0.47, − 0.09] − 0.28 [− 0.47, − 0.09] 5.50 0.0 840 (7) 2, 10, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26
tive
  Sexual abuse by a parent − 0.57 [− 0.91, − 0.22] − 0.57 [− 0.91, − 0.22] 0.05 0.0 198 (3) 20, 21, 26
  Physical abuse − 0.27 [− 0.35, − 0.18] − 0.27 [− 0.39, − 0.15] 24.60 39.0 3285 (16) 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17,
18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26
  Physical abuse by a − 0.08 [− 0.33, 0.18] − 0.08 [− 0.33, 0.18] 1.28 0.0 367 (3) 2, 18, 20
relative
  Emotional abuse − 0.23 [− 0.38, − 0.08] − 0.23 [− 0.38, − 0.08] 7.00 0.0 1304 (8) 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 25
  Neglect − 0.21 [− 0.31, − 0.11] − 0.19 [− 0.32, − 0.06] 17.74 32.4 2940 (13) 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18,
21, 24, 25, 26
 Exposure to domestic − 0.18 [− 0.31, − 0.05] − 0.20 [− 0.37, − 0.03] 10.54 24.1 1698 (9) 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 24
violence

A positive d indicates that adolescents with extrafamilial victims had more characteristics that were considered problematic (e.g., antisocial atti-
tudes), statistically rare (e.g., learning disorder), or risk relevant (e.g., family disruption) than adolescents with intrafamilial victims
Bolded values indicate that the group differences were statistically significant, p < 0.05. Indented variables with distinct labels represent subcat-
egories
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
a
 One outlier removed
b
 The corresponding references to the sample numbers can be found in the reference list

Variability across these variables was non-significant and were found for paternal substance abuse (d = − 0.20), paren-
small to moderate, except for number of siblings (high and tal psychological disorders (d = − 0.14), and sexualized fam-
significant variability, 63%). Effect sizes in the same pattern ily environments (d = − 0.23). AIV and AEV presented with

13
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Table 4  Comparing adolescents who have committed an offense against intrafamilial victims versus extrafamilial victims on psychopathology
indicators
Variables Fixed-effect Random-effects Q I2 N (k) Samplesb
d [95% CI] d [95% CI]

Externalizing problems
 Conduct problems − 0.07 [− 0.23, 0.10] 0.01 [− 0.32, 0.34] 21.96** 68.1 1392 (8) 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 18, 21, 22
 Global externalizing 0.004 [− 0.10, 0.11] − 0.01 [− 0.17, 0.16] 26.26* 50.5 1463 (14) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22,
24, 25, 26
  Disruptive disorder − 0.02 [− 0.16, 0.11] − 0.02 [− 0.22, 0.18] 11.96 41.5 1151 (8) 1, 8, 11, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26
   ADHD − 0.04 [− 0.21, 0.13] − 0.01 [− 0.23, 0.21] 9.30 35.5 1083 (7) 1, 8, 11, 18, 21, 24, 26
   ODD − 0.02 [− 0.40, 0.35] − 0.02 [− 0.40, 0.35] 0.67 0.0 519 (3) 11, 18, 21
  Aggression 0.02 [− 0.12, 0.16] 0.01 [− 0.24, 0.26] 16.41* 57.3 840 (8) 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 20, 21, 22
   Childhood aggression − 0.15 [− 0.37, 0.08] − 0.15 [− 0.37, 0.08] 1.30 0.0 475 (3) 1, 11, 20
Internalizing problems
 Global internalizing − 0.20 [− 0.29, − 0.11] − 0.21 [− 0.39, − 0.03] 20.00* 55.0 1816 (10) 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26
  Outlier removeda − 0.15 [− 0.24, − 0.06] − 0.15 [− 0.24, − 0.06] 5.33 0.0 1677 (9) 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25
  Anxiety − 0.09 [− 0.50, 0.33] − 0.27 [− 1.06, 0.53] 9.80* 69.4 472 (4) 4, 21, 25, 26
  Outlier removeda 0.12 [− 0.33, 0.56] 0.05 [− 0.65, 0.75] 4.30 53.5 333 (3) 4, 21, 25
  Depression − 0.004 [− 0.25, 0.24] 0.01 [− 0.30, 0.32] 6.27 36.2 532 (5) 4, 7, 21, 25, 26
  Suicidal behaviors − 0.14 [− 0.27, − 0.02] − 0.14 [− 0.27, -0.02] 0.30 0.0 1496 (4) 12, 14, 18, 25
Clinical presentation
 Self-regulation 0.004 [− 0.12, 0.13] 0.004 [− 0.12, 0.13] 1.14 0.0 1083 (4) 11, 12, 21, 25
 Denial 0.13 [− 0.05, 0.31] 0.11 [− 0.15, 0.37] 5.66 47.0 936 (4) 9, 12, 14, 22
 Empathy − 0.02 [− 0.19, 0.15] − 0.02 [− 0.19, 0.15] 3.03 0.0 940 (6) 9, 10, 16, 21, 22, 25
 Treatment readiness 0.16 [− 0.12, 0.43] 0.16 [− 0.12, 0.43] 0.83 0.0 301 (3) 2, 3, 25

A positive d indicates that adolescents with extrafamilial victims had more characteristics that were considered problematic (e.g., antisocial atti-
tudes), statistically rare (e.g., learning disorder), or risk relevant (e.g., family disruption) than adolescents with intrafamilial victims
Bolded values indicate that the group differences were statistically significant, p < 0.05. Indented variables with distinct labels represent subcat-
egories
ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, ODD Oppositional Defiant Disorder
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
a
 One outlier removed
b
 The corresponding references to the sample numbers can be found in the reference list

small group and statistically non-significant differences in Psychopathology

terms of parental relationships, attachment, and parental
substance use (ds ranging from − 0.08 to 0.02).
Table 3 also presents the comparisons of AIV to AEV on
childhood maltreatment histories based on 3–21 samples (N
ranging from 198 to 3474). AIV consistently reported more
severe childhood maltreatment histories than AEV, as they
experienced more global childhood maltreatment, general
sexual abuse as well as sexual abuse by a relative or par-
ent, physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and exposure to
domestic violence (ds ranging from moderate to large − 0.18
to − 0.57). Variability across studies in this domain was non-
significant and small, indicating that childhood maltreatment
indicators were consistent across samples.
Table 4 presents the comparisons of AIV to AEV on psy-
chopathology indicators with comparisons based on 3–14
samples (N ranging from 301 to 1816). AIV presented with
more internalizing problems than AEV, specifically global
internalizing problems (d = − 0.15) and indicators of sui-
cidal behaviors/ideation (d = − 0.14), with little variability
across studies. Broadly, AIV presented with more conduct
problems and externalizing behaviors than AEV, but with
overall small to moderate and statistically non-significant
differences (d = − 0.15 to 0.02). AEV exhibited more denial
and less treatment readiness (d = 0.13 and d = 0.16) than
AIV.

13
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Table 5  Comparing adolescents who have committed an offense against intrafamilial victims versus extrafamilial victims on psychoeducational
and social functioning indicators
Variable Fixed-effect Random-effects Q I2 N (k) Samplesb
d [95% CI] d [95% CI]

Psychoeducational functioning indicators

 IQ 0.10 [− 0.001, 0.20] 0.13 [0.002, 0.26] 11.45 30.1 2178 (9) 1, 3, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25
  Verbal IQ − 0.001 [− 0.14, 0.14] − 0.001 [− 0.14, 0.14] 2.50 0.0 800 (4) 12, 21, 22, 25
  Performance IQ 0.04 [− 0.10, 0.19] 0.11 [− 0.20, 0.41] 8.30* 63.9 795 (4) 12, 21, 22, 25
   Outlier removeda − 0.05 [− 0.21, 0.11] − 0.05 [− 0.21, 0.11] 1.65 0.0 639 (3) 12, 21, 25
 Learning disorder 0.03 [− 0.12, 0.18] 0.04 [− 0.13, 0.21] 7.75 9.7 1247 (8) 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 24, 25
 Alternative school program 0.08 [− 0.04, 0.20] 0.08 [− 0.04, 0.20] 3.00 0.0 1884 (7) 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 23, 25
 School maladjustment 0.05 [− 0.05, 0.15] 0.08 [− 0.07, 0.23] 19.70* 44.2 1857 (12) 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21,
22, 25
   Outlier removeda 0.03 [− 0.07, 0.13] 0.03 [− 0.07, 0.13] 9.58 0.0 1813 (11) 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21,
22, 25
  Truancy 0.06 [− 0.12, 0.23] 0.07 [− 0.22, 0.36] 10.30* 61.2 1095 (5) 10, 11, 13, 14, 18
   Outlier removeda 0.15 [− 0.04, 0.34] 0.18 [− 0.09, 0.44] 5.11 41.3 950 (4) 10, 11, 13, 14
 Employment 0.13 [− 0.17, 0.42] 0.14 [− 0.24, 0.52] 3.17 36.9 640 (3) 11, 13, 15
Social functioning indicators
 Global social problems − 0.05 [− 0.18, 0.08] − 0.05 [− 0.18, 0.08] 5.37 0.0 1012 (8) 4, 7, 10, 12, 18, 21, 22, 25
  Social skills − 0.22 [− 0.46, 0.03] − 0.22 [− 0.46, 0.03] 2.28 0.0 548 (4) 10, 12, 18, 25
  Self-esteem 0.11 [− 0.10, 0.32] 0.08 [− 0.21, 0.37] 3.15 36.4 580 (3) 7, 10, 21
 Lonely − 0.04 [− 0.19, 0.12] − 0.07 [− 0.26, 0.13] 8.28 27.5 1082 (7) 1, 7, 10, 11, 16, 18, 25
 Young friends 0.24 [− 0.03, 0.50] − 0.003 [− 0.61, 0.60] 4.48 55.3 609 (3) 1, 21, 25
 Bullying − 0.16 [− 0.48, 0.15] − 0.16 [− 0.48, 0.15] 1.42 0.0 457 (3) 10, 11, 24

A positive d indicates that adolescents with extrafamilial victims had more characteristics that were considered problematic (e.g., antisocial atti-
tudes), statistically rare (e.g., learning disorder), or risk relevant (e.g., family disruption) than adolescents with intrafamilial victims
Bolded values indicate that the group differences were statistically significant, p < 0.05. Indented variables with distinct labels represent subcat-
egories
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
a
 One outlier removed
b
 The corresponding references to the sample numbers can be found in the reference list

Psychoeducational and Social Functioning Sociolegal Victims of AIV

Table 5 presents the comparisons of psychoeducational and
social functioning of AIV to AEV with comparisons based
on 3–12 samples (N ranging from 457 to 2178). None of the
effect sizes in these domains reached statistical significance.
AIV and AEV presented with mostly small and some moder-
ate differences on psychoeducational functioning, globally
indicating lower psychoeducational functioning for AEV (ds
ranging from − 0.05 to 0.15). The directions of the effect
sizes for group differences on social functioning were small
to moderate in size but in inconclusive directions for AIV
and AEV (ds ranging from − 0.22 to 0.24).
Moderator Analyses
Figure representations of the moderator analyses can be
found in the Supplemental Materials and Figures S10–S29.
Compared to AEV, AIV samples with more sociolegal vic-
tims had more extensive non-sexual non-violent offense
histories than AIV samples with fewer sociolegal victims
(Z = − 1.49, p = 0.19, k = 6). Reversely, AIV samples with
higher proportions of sociolegal victims presented with
fewer indicators of antisociality and externalizing problems
than AIV samples with lower proportions of sociolegal vic-
tims. Larger proportions of AIV with sociolegally related
victims exclusively were related to larger effect sizes for
global antisociality (Z = 1.73, p = 0.001, k = 9), global exter-
nalizing (Z = 2.85, p = 0.001, k = 8), and disruptive disor-
ders (Z = 2.70, p = 0.003, k = 6). The effect size “flipped”
for externalizing problems (from d = − 0.50 to d = 0.20) and
disruptive disorders (from d = − 0.29 to d = 0.21), indicating
that AIV samples with fewer sociolegal victims had more
externalizing problems and disruptive disorders than AEV;

13
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
AIV samples with more sociolegal victims had fewer exter-
nalizing problems and disruptive disorders than AEV.
Child Victims of AIV and AEV
Proportion of child victims in AIV changed the effect size
of number of victims from d = − 0.59 to d = 0.22. When
compared to AEV, AIV fewer child victims had a higher
overall number of victims than AIV samples with more child
victims (Z = 2.92, p = 0.030, k = 13). Compared to AEV, AIV
samples with larger proportions of child victims had more
externalizing problems than AIV samples with fewer child
victims (Z = − 2.89, p = 0.047, k = 12).
When analyzing the effect of proportion of child victims
in AEV on conventional sexual experiences, the effect size
changed direction from positive to negative (from d = 0.35 to
d = − 0.55) for conventional sexual experiences (Z = − 2.62,
p = 0.048, k = 6). This means that AEV with smaller propor-
tions of child victims had fewer conventional sexual experi-
ences than AIV. On the other hand, AEV samples with larger
proportions of child victims had more conventional sexual
experiences than AIV.
Compared to AIV, AEV samples with more child
victims also presented as less antisocial (Z = −  3.28,
p = 0.029, k = 16), with fewer global externalizing prob-
lems (Z = − 3.85, p = 0.011, k = 13), and less aggression
(Z = − 3.18, p = 0.026, k = 8) relative to AEV samples with
fewer child victims. AEV samples with more child victims
also more often had parents with substance abuse problems
and more internalizing symptoms than AEV samples with
fewer child victims (Z = 2.29, p = 0.025, k = 9; Z = 1.78,
p = 0.042, k = 8).
Male Victims of AIV and AEV
Male victims in AIV samples moderated the direction of the
effect size of divorce rates, indicating that AIV samples with
higher proportions of male victims had divorce rates more
similar to AEV (Z = 3.27, p = 0.002, k = 7). The effect of
male victims in AIV on parental psychological disorder was
inconclusive (Z = 1.89, p = 0.006, k = 7). Compared to AEV,
AIV samples with larger proportions of male victims had
more global externalizing problems than AIV samples with
smaller proportions of male victims (Z = − 2.79, p = 0.029,
k = 11).
For AEV samples, male victims moderated effect sizes
of sexual abuse and sexual abuse by a relative: AEV with
higher proportions of male victims had more extensive
sexual abuse histories and were more likely to have been
sexually abused by relatives than AEV with lower pro-
portions of male victims (from d = − 1.04 to d = − 0.07;
Z = 2.23, p = 0.046, k = 16; and from d = − 0.56 to d = 0.12;
Z = 2.23, p = 0.036, k = 6). More male victims in AEV
samples were also related to fewer global externalizing
problems (Z = − 3.04, p = 0.017, k = 11), disruptive disorders
(Z = − 2.44, p = 0.039, k = 7), and Attention Deficit/Hyper-
activity Disorder (ADHD; Z = − 2.26, p = 0.042, k = 6) than
in AEV samples with fewer male victims, when compared
to AIV.
Publication Bias
Publication bias was assessed using between-level Q sta-
tistics to examine the extent to which publication status
(published versus unpublished) influenced the direction or
magnitude of the effect size. In order to assess the effect of
publication, the analysis required at least 2 published and 2
unpublished studies on any given effect size, leading to 20
dependent outcome variables analyzed. Larger effect sizes
for published samples were present in 15 of the 20 variables
analyzed (published studies’ ds ranging from − 0.97 to 0.27,
Mdn= − 0.15; unpublished studies’ ds ranging from − 0.54
to 0.18, Mdn= − 0.01). Publication bias, however, did not
significantly moderate any effect sizes (see Table S3 of the
Supplemental Materials).
Discussion
Summary
This meta-analysis found that victim relatedness is an impor-
tant distinction in adolescent sexual offending. Adolescents
who have committed a sexual offense against an intrafamil-
ial victim (AIV) reported greater atypical sexual interests
and sexual regulation issues, greater family dysfunction,
more extensive maltreatment histories, and more internal-
izing psychopathology compared to adolescents who have
committed a sexual offense against an extrafamilial victim
(AEV). In contrast, AEV tended to commit sexual offenses
as part of a more general pattern of antisocial behavior. The
observed differences were generally small to moderate in
size and variability across studies ranged from none to large.
The type of relatedness, age, and gender of victims were
also moderators of the differences between AIV and AEV
in conventional sexual experiences, antisociality, and other
externalizing behaviors. The key findings and implications
are discussed in the next sections.
Sexuality
The finding that AIV consistently presented with more
atypical sexual interest indicators than AEV across studies
is particularly striking, considering they are the opposite
of what is found in the adult literature. Specifically, adults
who commit sexual offenses against intrafamilial victims
13
 Author's personal copy
typically score lower on measures of atypical sexual interest
than adults who commit sexual offenses against extrafamil-
ial victims (Seto et al. 2015). Measures of general sexual-
ity indicated that AEV had more problems in these areas,
but the differences were small, extending previous findings
that conventional sexual experiences do not seem to play
a differentiating role in adolescent sexual offending (Seto
and Lalumière 2010). As also previously noted by Seto and
Lalumière (2010), it is surprising that only 7 out of 26 (27%)
included studies reported on atypical sexual interest vari-
ables. Considering the pattern of findings regarding atypical
sexual interests in AIV, and the key role atypical interests
plays in adult sexual recidivism (Hanson and Morton-Bour-
gon 2005; Seto 2019), it seems that atypical sexual interests,
and likely sexuality more broadly, is an important domain to
better understand intrafamilial and extrafamilial adolescent
sexual offending.
Antisociality
AEV consistently showed more indicators of antisociality
than AIV. These results echo results of a previous meta-anal-
ysis showing the same general pattern for adults (Seto et al.
2015). The finding that antisociality in AEV was negatively
moderated by proportion of child victims—meaning that
AEV samples with more child victims were less antisocial
than AEV samples with fewer child victims when compared
to AIV—lends further support for the hypothesis that ado-
lescents with extrafamilial peer or adult victims are more
antisocial than adolescents who commit offenses against
intrafamilial child victims (Leroux et al. 2016). The pattern
of effect sizes for AEV in the domain of antisociality might
further extend previous research concluding that adolescents
who have committed a sexual offense (ASOs) are less anti-
social than adolescents who have committed a non-sexual
offense (ANSOs; Seto and Lalumière 2010). The results of
this meta-analysis suggest that merging AIV and AEV may
obscure important differences in antisociality among ASOs.
This meta-analysis, however, only tells us about the relative
difference between AIV and AEV, not about the absolute
prevalence of problems or risk factors within these groups.
In this meta-analysis, AEV were more antisocial than AIV;
this does not tell us how antisocial AIV or AEV are com-
pared to adolescents with no criminal record or with a gen-
eral offense history.
Moderating Effects of Biological Versus Sociolegal
Relationship
As compared to AEV, AIV samples with a higher propor-
tion of sociolegal victims presented with fewer problems
on global antisociality, global externalizing, and disrup-
tive disorders than AIV samples with lower proportions of
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
sociolegal victims. This finding was unexpected, as these
results are contrary to previous research that indicates that
adults who offend against sociolegal victims tend to present
with more antisociality than adults who offend against bio-
logical victims (Pullman et al. 2017). Firstly, it is important
to qualify that these findings are based on a small number
of samples and limited range in the moderator variables.
We view these findings as interesting puzzles that warrant
further investigation. A possible explanation of why higher
proportions of sociolegal victims in AIV was associated
with less antisocial and externalizing problems than AIV
with fewer sociolegal victims may be that incest taboo and
avoidance effects are weaker for adolescents and their socio-
legally related relatives, thus requiring less antisociality to
overcome incest prohibitions and commit a sexual offense.
However, this relationship is likely influenced by the age
of becoming stepsiblings and the gender of the stepsib-
lings. An interesting avenue for future research would be
to explore how sociolegal and biological relatedness and
timing of family disruption are related differently to risk in
adolescents and adults who commit sexual offenses against
intrafamilial victims, as well as how these variables influ-
ence differences between AIV and AEV on antisocial and
externalizing problems.
Offense Characteristics
The findings that AIV presented with more severe offense
characteristics than AEV are in line with findings across the
intrafamilial sexual offending literature (e.g., Carlson et al.
2006; Cyr et al. 2002; Krienert and Walsh 2011). The greater
severity of offense characteristics also fit with the pattern of
more atypical sexual interest indicators of AIV, though this
is not found among adults who offend against intrafamilial
victims, who also have more severe offense characteristics
yet are less likely to show atypical sexual interests (Seto
et al. 2015). On the other hand, more severe offense char-
acteristics may also be explained by opportunity, with AIV
having longer and more frequent access to younger victims
as a result of committing an offense within their family and
family homes (Leclerc et al. 2015). Substance abuse during
the offense showed a reverse relationship compared to the
rest of the domain, with AEV presenting more instances of
substance abuse than AIV. However, substance use during
the commission of an offense is a well-established corre-
late of general delinquency (Felson et al. 2008; White et al.
2002), and the group finding is thus consistent with the find-
ing that AEV are globally more antisocial than AIV. The
observed differences within this domain, however, showed
moderate to high variability across studies, indicating that
other factors play a crucial role in the differences between
AIV and AEV in some of the offense characteristics. For
example, hypothetically the variability observed in number
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
of victims could be accounted for by the specific operation-
alization of intrafamilial victims in some studies. Studies
who defined their intrafamilial group as having “any intra-
familial victim” may have a higher average of number of
victims since adolescents with both intra- and extrafamilial
victims would have been included in that group. However,
the overall difference in number of victims between AIV and
AEV were small (d = − 0.06) and remained small when the
comparison to AEV was limited to AIV with 100% intrafa-
milial victims (d = − 0.02).
The Family Context
AIV consistently presented with more dysfunctional family
environments than AEV. These disorganized family struc-
tures might reflect a lack of parental oversight and stability,
creating environments where intrafamilial sexual offending
is more likely to take place (Seto 2019; Leclerc et al. 2015).
It is likely these indicators precede the sexual offense and
could therefore potentially play a causal role in the onset of
intrafamilial sexual offending. Sexualized family environ-
ments are also hypothesized to play a key role in the onset,
and possible maintenance, of intrafamilial adolescent sexual
offending (Smith and Israel 1987). In the current meta-anal-
ysis only three studies, comprising 491 adolescents, reported
on this variable. However, this factor has promise in distin-
guishing AIV from AEV, as the magnitude of this effect size
is considered large relative to our benchmark (d = − 0.23,
95% CI [− 0.49, 0.04]).
Family maltreatment is among the most commonly
reported indicators of family dysfunction. This is unsurpris-
ing given childhood maltreatment is thought to play a key
role in the onset of intrafamilial sexual offending, as well as
adolescent offending generally. To illustrate, all eight pub-
lished studies and thirteen unpublished studies reported on
family maltreatment. Regrettably, information about other,
more general indicators of family dysfunction was mostly
superficial and unstandardized. For instance, only three stud-
ies, representing 300 adolescents, reported on the quality
of parental relationships. Other hypothetically important
variables, such as parenting styles, parental supervision, or
maternal and paternal attachment and relationships, had few
studies and effect sizes indicated inconsistent directions.
Surprisingly, none of the studies reported on sibling–sib-
ling relationships. This is understandable as it is difficult
to infer the change in sibling–sibling relationships pre-to
post-offense, especially if the intrafamilial sexual offending
was perpetrated against a sibling. Nevertheless, understand-
ing sibling–dynamics and relationships may be especially
important in explaining the onset, continuation, and ces-
sation of intrafamilial sexual offending, particularly if the
offending was directed at one (or more) specific siblings
within the family unit. Future research should prioritize
these factors.
Family dynamics and relationships are promising theo-
retical risk factors for intrafamilial adolescent sexual offend-
ing. Victims of sibling sexual offending report strained and
unequal relationships between them and their siblings, and
general negative family dynamics with absent and unsup-
portive parents, creating environments where the offending
could take place, go unnoticed, or be ignored (Laviola 1992;
Katz and Hamama 2017; McDonald and Martinez 2017;
Monahan 2010). These relationships are likely negatively
influenced by the sexual offense, and due to the retrospec-
tive assessment, the temporal association of relationship
quality to the onset of sexual offending behavior is hard to
determine. Nonetheless, family treatment studies report an
increase in positive relationships between the person who
has committed an intrafamilial sexual offense, the victim,
and other family members (Bass et al. 2006; Halse et al.
2012; Haskins 2003; Thornton et al. 2008). Longitudinal
research is sorely needed to further test the role of par-
ent–child and sibling–sibling relationships in theories and
clinical interventions addressing intrafamilial adolescent
sexual offending.
The Role of Maltreatment
AIV reported more extensive maltreatment histories than
AEV, consistent with findings in the adult literature (Seto
et al. 2015). Given that child maltreatment is often com-
mitted by parents or other caregivers (Finkelhor et  al.
2014; Radford et al. 2013), these findings are consistent
with the concept of intergenerational continuity of mal-
treatment (Schofield et al. 2013; Thornberry and Henry
2013). The notably large effect sizes for sexual abuse
histories (d = − 0.35)—especially parental sexual abuse
(d = − 0.57)—as more severe for AIV suggest that a history
of sexual abuse may be especially pertinent to the onset of
intrafamilial adolescent sexual offending. These findings
lend further support for the association between sexual abuse
history and perpetration of sexual offending, also known as
the sexually abused-sexual abuser hypothesis (Burton 2003;
Jespersen et al. 2009; Seto and Lalumière 2010; Seto et al.
2015; Ward et al. 2006). While sexual abuse histories may
not predict sexual recidivism in adults (Hanson and Morton-
Bourgon 2005), there is tentative evidence that sexual abuse
histories may be a risk factor for adolescent sexual recidi-
vism (Mallie et al. 2011), again indicating differential devel-
opmental contexts of risk factors for adults and adolescents.
There may also be a specific association between sexual
abuse histories and atypical sexual interests in adolescents.
Previous research has indicated that ASOs with sexual abuse
histories show bigger erectile responses to sexual stimuli
pertaining children or coercion (Becker et al. 1992; Murphy
13
 Author's personal copy
et al. 2001). Among adults who commit sexual offenses,
childhood sexual abuse is related to greater paraphilic inter-
ests, more paraphilic experiences, and more extensive sexual
life histories (Pedneault et al. 2019). Our results are also
consistent with hypotheses that physical and sexual abuse
can lead to negative affect, which in turn leads to maladap-
tive coping through sexual behavior, for instance, in the
form of sexual preoccupation and atypical sexual fantasies
(Cortoni and Marshall 2001; Knight and Sims-Knight 2004;
Maniglio 2011).
Psychopathology
AIV presented with more psychopathology overall com-
pared than AEV. It should, however, be noted that informa-
tion on the timing of psychopathological assessments was
lacking. It is likely that these assessments were performed
after the adolescent was identified as having committed a
sexual offense. These assessments, especially concerning
internalizing problems, may therefore be influenced by the
consequences of being identified as a person who has com-
mitted a sexual offense, such as experiencing depression or
anxiety due to the stigma associated with sexual offending
(Jeglic et al. 2012; Leroux 2019; Tewksbury 2012). This
would be applicable to both AIV and AEV, but the stigma
may be worse for AIV considering the taboos associated
with incest as well as offending against young children
(Paine and Hansen 2002).
Inconsistent with the pattern observed in the antisociality
domain, AIV presented with more externalizing problems,
albeit with small and non-significant effect sizes. This find-
ing is inconsistent because antisociality and externalizing
problems (especially conduct disorder) are positively corre-
lated (Vess and Skelton 2010). Consistent with the pattern in
the antisociality domain, AEV presented with greater denial
and less treatment readiness, which may more likely be a
reflection of antisociality rather than psychopathology. This
is important to consider from a clinical perspective, because
it may indicate that AEV may be more difficult to engage in
the treatment process.
Moderating Effect of Age and Gender of Victim
Having a larger proportion of child or male victims was
associated with more externalizing problems among AIV,
but fewer externalizing problems among AEV. The modera-
tor results—limited by restricted range of the moderator and
number of samples included—for AEV seem to mimic the
adult literature, wherein adults who have committed sexual
offenses against child victims tend to present with fewer
externalizing traits than adults who commit sexual offenses
against adult victims (Vess and Skelton 2010). The results
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
for AIV, however, are puzzling and indicate further research
is needed to understand how externalizing behavior and vic-
tim age, gender, and relatedness might intersect.
Psychoeducational and Social Functioning
The magnitude of effect size differences between AIV and
AEV on psychoeducational functioning were small over-
all. The effect sizes in the social functioning domain were
small to moderate and in inconsistent directions. Moderator
analysis indicated that, when compared to AIV, AEV with
lower proportions of exclusive child victims (i.e., a higher
proportion of peer/adult victims) had fewer conventional
sexual experiences than AEV with higher proportions of
exclusive child victims. This might indicate that AEV with
peer victims who lack the skills to acquire consensual sexual
experiences—further supported by the less extensive con-
ventional sexual histories of AEV—sexually offend to fulfill
these peer-related sexual and romantic needs.
These findings are somewhat counter-intuitive as it could
also be expected that male adolescents with lower social
skills will be more likely to offend against children because
peer relationships may seem intimidating to initiate and/
or difficult to maintain. Although this explanation would
align with the heterosocial skills deficit hypothesis of ado-
lescent sexual offending (Finkelhor 1984), the proportion
of child victims in AEV did not moderate the social skills
effects, and AIV had overall poorer social skills than AEV
(d = − 0.22). Notwithstanding small differences between
AIV and AEV, interventions within the psychoeducational
and social domains are well supported to decrease recidi-
vism in adolescents adjudicated for sexual offenses (Van den
Berg et al. 2017; Yoder et al. 2016).
Clinical Implications
The results of this meta-analysis indicate that AIV and AEV,
on average, are different in some ways that need to be con-
sidered in explanations of intrafamilial and extrafamilial
adolescent sexual offending. While we must base decisions
about treatment and interventions on individual assessments,
it is expected that AIV and AEV require a differentiated
treatment approach. The results of this study also emphasize
that we should not extrapolate findings from adults to ado-
lescents who have sexually offended. In this meta-analysis,
we find that AIV are consistently more likely to show atypi-
cal sexual interests compared to AEV, whereas the reverse
pattern is found for adults (Seto et al. 2015). It would be a
mistake if treatment programs assume that atypical sexual
interests do not warrant attention in AIV. The results of the
study also suggest that AEV are more likely to commit sex-
ual offenses within a pattern of general delinquent behavior
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
and, thus, may benefit more than AIV from a validated treat-
ment approach targeting general criminogenic needs.
The results highlight the important role that family dys-
function plays in adolescent sexual offending, especially for
AIV. It is clear that more research is needed to understand
what role family dysfunction plays, and how to best inter-
vene to prevent sexual offending. Systemic approaches are
shown to be effective for a broad range of adolescent delin-
quent behaviors (Van der Stouwe et al. 2014), but might be
especially pertinent for adolescent sexual offending (Dopp
et al. 2017; Letourneau et al. 2013; Seto and Lalumière
2010). Systemic treatment with families in which adoles-
cent sexual offending and abuse has taken place may not be
a simple endeavor. For example, housing and the placement
of the adolescent in- or outside of the family home after the
sexual offense is a complex decision (Grant et al. 2006).
The threat of out-of-home placement might impact willing-
ness of victims to disclose the sexual abuse if the victim is
scared that it would break up the family (Seto 2018). Fur-
ther, while the disruption of parenting seems not to be in
the best interest of adolescents in terms of mental health,
attachment needs, and risk reduction (Thornton et al. 2008),
the needs of the victim and other family members must also
be considered.
The results of this meta-analysis could aid practitioners
in identifying factors that predate the onset of sexual offend-
ing, thereby contributing to prevention efforts. Some of the
differences identified in this meta-analysis likely predate the
onset of sexual offending, such as atypical sexual interests
in children (Seto 2019) or family histories of divorce, foster
care, or parental problems such as substance abuse or crim-
inal involvement. Other differences, however, may follow
the onset of sexual offending or may be conflated with pre-
existing differences, particularly psychopathology and fam-
ily conflict (Seto and Lalumière 2010; Seto et al. 2015. As
we have suggested in our previous work, an important direc-
tion for research to understand both adolescent and adult
sexual offending—and a necessary condition for suggesting
causal influence—is a better sense of temporal precedence.
Given the often-hidden nature of sexual offending in
general, especially intrafamilial sexual offending, mental
health, child protection, and school professionals must rely
on behavioral flags to initiate prevention and/or intervention
responses. Most professionals working with male adoles-
cents will come across some who are at risk of committing
sexual offenses, some who are at risk of becoming victims
of sexual offending within their families, or some who are
at risk of becoming both victims and perpetrators of sexual
abuse. The results of this meta-analysis give information
about possible avenues to develop primary and secondary
interventions and screening tools within families at risk
for both sexual offending and victimization. For instance,
families with high levels of dysfunction and poly-form
maltreatment could be at increased risk of intrafamilial sex-
ual offending. Similarly, sexualized family norms, sexual
dysregulation, and increased pornography use should also
be attended to, especially when combined with evidence of
maltreatment and family dysfunction. This meta-analysis
can raise the awareness of practitioners to commonly clus-
tered factors that are associated with intrafamilial adolescent
sexual offending.
Limitations
This meta-analysis is based on studies that used official
records of criminal charges and/or convictions. The “dark
number” of undetected sexual offenses committed by adoles-
cents is thought to be high, as most sexual offenses are not
officially reported (Daly and Bouhours 2010; Planty et al.
2013). The dark number for intrafamilial adolescent sexual
offenses may be even higher, as taboo, stigma, and denial
of incest is widespread (Ginzburg et al. 2006; Paine and
Hansen 2002). Complex and possibly differential selection
effects may influence whether AIV and AEV are reported to
the justice system and are consequently included in foren-
sic and clinical samples. This complicates a straightforward
comparison, as risk domains may be influenced by these
selection effects.
For example, it is possible that AIV have a longer dura-
tion of offending because their victims are too young to dis-
close sexual abuse or family dysfunction reduces reporting.
Alternatively, it might be that AEV have less opportunity
and/or access to younger victims to commit intrusive sexual
offenses, even though they might be similar to AIV in terms
of their motivation to offend against young children. It is
also reasonable to assume that perpetration by a stranger
(which is very unlikely for intrafamilial sexual offenses)
contributes to whether a sexual offense is more likely to be
reported (Finkelhor and Ormrod 1999).
These potential selection effects are a limitation of the
literature as well as of this meta-analysis. We had too few
studies to be able to perform analyses to investigate all these
possible moderation effects. Future studies should examine
if, for example, observed differences between AIV and AEV
in intrusiveness are explained by differences in duration of
sexual offending, where offenses against a related victim can
span months or even years, as opposed to something intrin-
sically different in intrafamilial versus extrafamilial offend-
ing motivations. Future studies could also aim to include
detailed indicators of coercion (e.g., victim injury and dura-
tion), information on the source of disclosure to the justice
system, and information on access and supervision. This
would enable investigation into the contextual risk factors
related to reporting intra- and extrafamilial sexual offense.
13
 Author's personal copy
A limitation of every meta-analysis is that analyses are
dependent on the variables included in the primary stud-
ies, and how those variables were reported. Constructs were
operationalized inconsistently across studies. For example,
sexual interest in children was assessed in three studies with
penile plethysmography, while four other studies used self-
report or clinical opinion. Many psychological and behav-
ioral variables were dependent on clinical judgment, which
could have influenced their reliability and consistent opera-
tionalization. Most variables were recorded retrospectively,
and as such, might have be prone to bias: for instance, child-
hood sexual abuse can be both under- and over-reported in
sexual offending research (Baldwin et al. 2019; Jespersen
et al. 2009). We had insufficient data to examine how method
type (self-report, clinical judgement, risk assessments) mod-
erated effect sizes.
Most notable was the inconsistent definition of intrafa-
milial adolescent sexual offending across studies. Only half
of the studies reported detailed information on victim relat-
edness. Of those, some studies included only biologically
related victims (full/half siblings), while others included
sociolegally related victims (step/foster/adopted siblings).
Some studies included only first degree related, minor-aged
victims, while others also included second or third degree
related, adult-aged victims. For this study, we chose to
include all types of relatives as representing intrafamilial
relationships to increase power—and because were limited
in how data were presented in the published samples or in
the database/output provided to us. We expect that consid-
erable contributions to the understanding of intrafamilial
adolescent sexual offending could be made by examining
the extent to which relatedness—especially biological and
sociolegal relatedness—is related to risk factors and out-
comes for AIV, such as recidivism, management, and treat-
ment needs.
Four out of eight published samples included adolescents
who had committed a sexual offense against both intrafa-
milial and extrafamilial victims as AIV in their sample. In
order to maximize includability of studies, we decided to
use this definition for AIV going forward when coding and
analyzing the unpublished samples. When we received raw
data, we coded AIV and AEV such that any of the adoles-
cents in the dataset who had committed a sexual offense
against both an intra- and extrafamilial victim was coded as
AIV. When authors provided us with output, we requested to
adhere to this definition of AIV as well (as also provided in
our Coding Manual, available in the Supplemental Materi-
als). This means the results of our meta-analysis should be
understood as a quantitative review of studies that compare
adolescents who have committed any intrafamilial sexual
offenses with adolescents who have committed extrafamilial
sexual offenses exclusively. Almost all samples indicated
they grouped the adolescents based on a complete history of
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
offenses, except for two studies that grouped based on index
offenses only. This may have misclassified some AIV and
AEV because they had disparate sexual offense histories.
Paying attention to adolescents who have committed a
sexual offense against both intrafamilial and extrafamilial
victims might be important as several studies indicate that
persons who commit sexual offenses against polymorphic
victim types may differ from persons who commit sexual
offenses against a single victim type. There is some evidence
that adult men who commit polymorphic sexual offenses are
more likely to have atypical sexual interests (e.g., Cann et al.
2007; Stephens et al. 2018). It is possible the observed dif-
ference in atypical sexual interests between AIV and AEV in
the current meta-analysis is affected by the presence of AIV
with multiple, polymorphic victims. Unfortunately, it was
not possible to directly test this, as the moderator “intrafa-
milial and extrafamilial victims” could not be meaningfully
analyzed due to the limited range of this moderator (8 out of
10 studies reporting on this moderator only had 10–20% of
their sample with both intra- and extrafamilial victims). We
could also not perform post-hoc analyses of the influence of
monomorphic victim type (i.e., exclusively intrafamilial vic-
tims) on atypical sexual interest variables by analyzing AIV
samples with 100% intrafamilial victims. This was because
none of the sexuality variables had sufficient AIV groups
consisting of 100% intrafamilial victims to meta-analyze,
as we only meta-analyzed effect sizes of which at least three
samples reported information. As such, an important con-
sideration in future research on victim type polymorphism
is intrafamilial and/or extrafamilial relatedness.
The theoretical foundations of this meta-analysis were
based on male-specific research. Considering only one
published manuscript reported on female AIV and AEV
(Willard 2014), we decided to omit female ASOs from the
analyses, as we could not conduct meaningful comparisons.
The findings of this study should not be extrapolated to
female AIV and AEV. There is evidence that risk factors
for general and sexual offending and recidivism rates are
different for adult men and women, influenced by, for exam-
ple, relationships, antisocial attitudes, and societal response
(Gannon and Cortoni 2010). This might also be true for
adolescent girls and boys, although the lack of research on
women, and more particularly, adolescent girls who com-
mit sexual offenses is still severely lacking when compared
to male-specific research. As such, there is a considerable
need for more primary studies about female ASOs, espe-
cially female adolescents who have committed intrafamilial
sexual offenses. Anonymized surveys may be highly suitable
for such research, given self-reported victimization data sug-
gest that, while girls do sexually offend, they are very rarely
seen by the justice system or clinics (Stemple et al. 2017). It
should also be noted that all the studies in this meta-analysis
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
are from Anglophone and Western European countries and
might not generalize to other countries and cultures.
Lastly, it is striking how few published studies have
reported on the comparison of AIV and AEV. We were able
to locate only 9 published studies in over 6000 screened
studies. When contacting authors from our search, it became
clear that victim relatedness is often recorded but is not
reported in published research. It is conceivable that more
datasets have victim relatedness recorded, which we were
not able to find and include in this meta-analysis. Also,
many variables thought to be theoretically important did
not have enough data to meta-analyze, or had the minimum
amount required. While meta-analyses are a powerful tool
to explore broad relations and propose relevant domains for
future research, primary studies are needed to more precisely
and efficiently explore how different variables intersect with
factors associated with adolescent sexual offending.
Conclusion
The field of research regarding adult sexual offending is
increasingly aware of the importance of victim relatedness
in terms of theory, risk assessment, and treatment. Research
into adolescent sexual offending should also move forward
to include victim relatedness, as the findings of this meta-
analysis show it is a relevant theoretical and clinical consid-
eration for this population. A strength of this meta-analysis
is the inclusion of unpublished data, adding to the confi-
dence of the findings. The key findings of this meta-analysis
are that AIV show a pattern of more pronounced atypical
sexual interests and family dysfunction, whereas AEV show
a pattern of more pronounced general antisocial behaviors
and attitudes. The main implication of this is that offense-
specific and general antisocial factors must be considered
when developing comprehensive theories of adolescent sex-
ual offending. These results also indicate that familial factors
are crucial to include in research about adolescent sexual
offending. After all, the central distinguishing characteristic
between AIV and AEV is whether the sexual offense was
committed against someone within or outside of the family.
While this meta-analysis cannot determine timing and
causality, it highlights several promising domains as a focus
for future research. Given most clinical practices will come
across intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual offending, it is
important that any comprehensive assessment includes these
factors. Large, longitudinal studies should aim to investigate
the complex nature and putatively causal relationships of
risk factors related to intrafamilial or extrafamilial adoles-
cent sexual offending. Our hope is the findings presented
here will be used as a jumping off point for more specific
investigation into the onset, maintenance, and desistance of
intrafamilial and extrafamilial adolescent sexual offending.
Compliance with Ethical Standards 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare there is no conflict of interest
and this work was not supported by a funding agency.
Ethical Approval  The study was not required to undergo ethical review.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate
samples included in the meta-analysis. The study
numbers in brackets correspond with the study
numbers in the tables. Numbers with a decimal
indicate unpublished datasets.
*Aebi, M. (2019). Offender types and criminality dimensions in male
juveniles convicted of sexual offenses. Unpublished dataset
[Study no. 9.1].
*Aebi, M., Vogt, G., Plattner, B., Steinhausen, H. C., & Bessler, C.
(2012). Offender types and criminality dimensions in male juve-
niles convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse, 24, 265–288.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63211​42044​9 [Study no. 9].
*Almond, L. (2019). Youths who sexually harm: A multivariate model
of characteristics. Unpublished dataset [Study no. 10.1].
*Almond, L., Canter, D., & Salfati, G. C. (2006). Youths who sexu-
ally harm: A multivariate model of characteristics. Journal of
Sexual Aggression, 12, 97–114. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13552​
60060​08236​05 [Study no. 10].
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychiatric Association.
Aquilino, W. S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems
in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.),
Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st cen-
tury (pp. 193–217). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Baldwin, J. R., Reuben, A., Newbury, J. B., & Danese, A. (2019).
Agreement between prospective and retrospective measures of
childhood maltreatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
JAMA Psychiatry, 76, 584–593. https​://doi.org/10.1001/jamap​
sychi​atry.2019.0097.
Bass, L. B., Taylor, B. A., Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D.
(2006). Making sense of abuse: Case studies in sibling incest.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 87–109. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1007/s1059​1-006-9697-0.
Becker, J. V., Kaplan, M. S., Cunningham-Rathner, J., & Kavoussi, R.
(1986). Characteristics of adolescent incest sexual perpetrators:
Preliminary findings. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 85–97. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/bf009​77034​.
Becker, J. V., Kaplan, M. S., & Tenke, C. E. (1992). The relationship of
abuse history, denial and erectile response profiles of adolescent
sexual perpetrators. Behavior Therapy, 23, 87–97. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/s0005​-7894(05)80310​-7.
Borduin, C. M., & Schaeffer, C. M. (2002). Multisystemic treatment
of juvenile sexual offenders. Journal of Psychology & Human
Sexuality, 13, 25–42. https​://doi.org/10.1300/j056v​13n03​_03.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R.
(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
Brackney, B. E., & Karabenick, S. A. (1995). Psychopathology and
academic performance: The role of motivation and learning
13
 Author's personal copy
strategies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 456–465. https​
://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.4.456.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
*Brown, S. (2019). Can systemic interventions designed to reduce reof-
fending by youth also reduce their victimization? Unpublished
dataset [Study no. 11.1].
*Burkhart, B. R. (2019). Childhood sexual abuse in adolescents adju-
dicated for sexual offenses: Mental health consequences and sex-
ual offending behaviors. Unpublished dataset [Study no. 12.1].
Burton, D. L. (2003). Male adolescents: Sexual victimization and sub-
sequent sexual abuse. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,
20, 277–296. https​://doi.org/10.1023/a:10245​56909​087.
Caldwell, M. F. (2011). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates
in juvenile sex offender recidivism. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 197–212.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/03066​24x08​33001​6f.
*Cale, J. (2019). Offense trajectories, the unfolding of sexual and
non-sexual criminal activity, and sex offense characteristics of
adolescent sex offenders. Unpublished dataset [Study no. 13.1].
*Cale, J., Smallbone, S., Rayment-McHugh, S., & Dowling, C.
(2016). Offense trajectories, the unfolding of sexual and non-
sexual criminal activity, and sex offense characteristics of ado-
lescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 28, 791–812. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/10790​63215​58096​8 [Study no. 13].
Cann, J., Friendship, C., & Gozna, L. (2007). Assessing crossover
in a sample of sexual offenders with multiple victims. Legal
and Criminological Psychology, 12, 149–163. https​: //doi.
org/10.1348/13553​2506x​11243​9.
Carlson, B. E., Maciol, K., & Schneider, J. (2006). Sibling incest:
Reports from forty-one survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,
15(4), 19–34. https​://doi.org/10.1300/j070v​15n04​_02.
Charlesworth, D., & Willis, J. H. (2009). The genetics of inbreeding
depression. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 783–796. https​://doi.
org/10.1038/nrg26​64.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2002). A developmental psy-
chopathology perspective on adolescence. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 6–20. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1037/0022-006x.70.1.6.
*Clift, R. J. (2019). Background, offence characteristics, and crimi-
nal outcomes of Aboriginal youth who sexually offend: A closer
look at Aboriginal youth intervention needs. Unpublished dataset
[Study no. 14.1].
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cortoni, F., & Marshall, W. L. (2001). Sex as a coping strategy and
its relationship to juvenile sexual history and intimacy in sexual
offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
13, 27–43. https​://doi.org/10.1023/a:10095​62312​658.
Cottle, C. C., Lee, R. J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of
criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Jus-
tice and Behavior, 28, 367–394. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00938​
54801​02800​3005.
Cyr, M., Wright, J., McDuff, P., & Perron, A. (2002). Intrafamilial sex-
ual abuse: Brother sister incest does not differ from father daugh-
ter and stepfather stepdaughter incest. Child Abuse & Neglect,
26, 957–973. https​://doi.org/10.1016/s0145​-2134(02)00365​-4.
*Daly, K. (2019). Youth sex offending, recidivism and restorative jus-
tice: Comparing court and conference cases. Unpublished data-
set [Study no. 15.1].
Daly, K., & Bouhours, B. (2010). Rape and attrition in the legal pro-
cess: A comparative analysis of five countries. Crime and Jus-
tice, 39, 565–650. https​://doi.org/10.1086/65310​1.
*Daly, K., Bouhours, B., Broadhurst, R., & Loh, N. (2013). Youth
sex offending, recidivism and restorative justice: Comparing
court and conference cases. Australian & New Zealand Journal
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
of Criminology, 46, 241–267. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00048​
65812​47038​3 [Study no. 15].
Daversa, M. T., & Knight, R. A. (2007). A structural examination
of the predictors of sexual coercion against children in ado-
lescent sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34,
1313–1333. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00938​54807​30241​1.
Davis, K. A., & Knight, R. A. (2019). The relation of childhood
abuse experiences to problematic sexual behaviors in male
youths who have sexually offended. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior, 48, 1–21. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1050​8-018-1279-3.
Dopp, A. R., Borduin, C. M., White, I. I., Mark, H., & Kuppens, S.
(2017). Family-based treatments for serious juvenile offenders:
A multilevel meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 85, 335–354. https​://doi.org/10.1037/ccp00​00183​.
*Edwards, R. (2019). Predicting dropout from a residential pro-
gramme for adolescent sexual abusers using pre-treatment
variables and implications for recidivism. Unpublished dataset
[Study no. 16.1].
*Edwards, R., Beech, A., Bishopp, D., Erikson, M., Friendship, C.,
& Charlesworth, L. (2005). Predicting dropout from a resi-
dential programme for adolescent sexual abusers using pre-
treatment variables and implications for recidivism. Journal of
Sexual Aggression, 11, 139–155. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13552​
60050​00636​41 [Study no. 16].
Eurostat. (2019). Being young in Europe today: Demographic trends.
Retrieved from https​://ec.europ​a.eu/euros​t at/stati​stics​-expla​
ined/index ​ . php/Being ​ _ young ​ _ in_Europ ​ e _today ​ _ -_demog​
raphi​c_trend​s.
Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research.
New York: The Free Press.
Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (1999). Reporting Crimes Against Juve-
niles (Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Publication No. NCJ178887).
Retrieved from: https ​ : //schol ​ a rs.unh.edu/cgi/viewc ​ o nten​
t.cgi?artic​le=1001&conte​xt=ccrc.
Finkelhor, D., Vanderminden, J., Turner, H., Hamby, S., & Shat-
tuck, A. (2014). Child maltreatment rates assessed in a national
household survey of caregivers and youth. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 38, 1421–1435. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.chiab​
u.2014.05.005.
Felson, R., Savolainen, J., Aaltonen, M., & Moustgaard, H. (2008).
Is the association between alcohol use and delinquency causal
or spurious? Criminology, 46, 785–808. https​://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1745-9125.2008.00120​.x.
Forns, M., Abad, J., & Kirchner, T. (2018). Internalizing and exter-
nalizing problems. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
adolescence (pp. 1965–1970). Berlin: Springer.
Forsman, M., Johansson, Santtila, Sandnabba, & Långström, N. (2012).
Child maltreatment and adult violent offending: population-based
twin study addressing the ‘cycle of violence’ hypothesis. Psycho-
logical Medicine, 42, 1977–1983. https​://doi.org/10.1017/s0033​
29171​10030​60.
Gannon, T. A., & Cortoni, F. (2010). Female sexual offenders: The-
ory, assessment and treatment. New York: Wiley. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/97804​70666​715.
Ginzburg, K., Arnow, B., Hart, S., Gardner, W., Koopman, C., Classen,
C. C., et al. (2006). The abuse-related beliefs questionnaire for
survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30,
929–943. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiab​u.2006.01.004.
Grant, J., Thornton, J., & Chamarette, C. (2006). Residential place-
ment of intra-familial adolescent sex offenders. Trends & Issues
in Crime and Criminal Justice, 315. Retrieved from: https​://aic.
gov.au/publi​catio​ns/tandi​/tandi​315.
Gunby, C., & Woodhams, J. (2010). Sexually deviant juveniles: Com-
parisons between the offender and offence characteristics of
‘child abusers’ and ‘peer abusers’. Psychology, Crime & Law,
16, 47–64. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10683​16080​26219​66.
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Halse, A., Grant, J., Thornton, J., Indermaur, D., Stevens, G., &
Chamarette, C. (2012). Intrafamilial adolescent sex offenders’
response to psychological treatment. Psychiatry, Psychology and
Law, 19, 221–235. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/132187​ 19.2011.56176​
3.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A
meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-006x.66.2.348.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics
of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism
studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73,
1154–1163. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.73.6.1154.
Haskins, C. (2003). Treating sibling incest using a family systems
approach. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 25, 337–350.
https​://doi.org/10.17744​/mehc.25.4.r0vm1​whayc​tmlmw​w.
Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and
diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 167–178. https​://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.167.
Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D.
(2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science.
PLoS Biology. https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pbio.10021​06.
Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of
loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26,
695–718. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.002.
*Hendriks, J., & Bijleveld, C. C. J. H. (2004). Juvenile sexual delin-
quents: Contrasting child abusers with peer abusers.  Crimi-
nal Behaviour and Mental Health, 14, 238–250. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/cbm.591 [Study no. 23].
Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003).
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Jour-
nal, 327, 557–560. https​://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
Jeglic, E. L., Mercado, C. C., & Levenson, J. S. (2012). The prevalence
and correlates of depression and hopelessness among sex offend-
ers subject to community notification and residence restriction
legislation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 46–59.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1210​3-010-9096-9.
Jespersen, A. F., Lalumière, M. L., & Seto, M. C. (2009). Sexual
abuse history among adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders:
A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 179–192. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chiab​u.2008.07.004.
*Joyal, C. C., Carpentier, J., & Martin, C. (2016). Discriminant factors
for adolescent sexual offending: On the usefulness of consider-
ing both victim age and sibling incest. Child Abuse & Neglect,
54, 10–22. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiab​u.2016.01.006 [Study
no. 1].
Katz, C., & Hamama, L. (2017). From my own brother in my own
home: Children’s experiences and perceptions following alleged
sibling incest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 3648–3668.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/08862​60515​60087​6.
*Kemper, T. S. (2019). Offense history and recidivism in three victim-
age-based groups of juvenile sex offenders. Unpublished dataset
[Study no. 17.1].
*Kemper, T. S., & Kistner, J. A. (2007). Offense history and recidivism
in three victim-age-based groups of juvenile sex offenders. Sex-
ual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 409–424.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1119​4-007-9061-4 [Study no. 17].
Knight, R. A., & Sims-Knight, J. E. (2004). Testing an etiological
model for male juvenile sexual offending against females. Jour-
nal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13, 33–55. https​://doi.org/10.1300/
j070v​13n03​_03.
Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2011). Sibling sexual abuse: An
empirical analysis of offender, victim, and event characteristics
in National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data,
2000–2007. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20, 353–372. https​
://doi.org/10.1300/j070v​13n03​_03.
*Latzman, N. E., Viljoen, J. L., Scalora, M. J., & Ullman, D. (2011).
Sexual offending in adolescence: A comparison of sibling
offenders and nonsibling offenders across domains of risk and
treatment need. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20, 245–263.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/10538​712.2011.57123​3 [Study no. 2].
Laviola, M. (1992). Effects of older brother-younger sister incest:
A study of the dynamics of 17 cases. Child Abuse & Neglect,
16, 409–421. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(92)90050​-2.
Leclerc, B., Smallbone, S., & Wortley, R. (2015). Prevention nearby:
The influence of the presence of a potential guardian on the
severity of child sexual abuse. Sexual Abuse, 27, 189–204.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63213​50459​4.
*Leroux, E. J. (2019). Victim age and the generalist versus specialist
distinction in adolescent sexual offending. Unpublished dataset
[Study no. 18.1].
Leroux, E. J. (2019). Understanding the experiences of justice-
involved youth at the intersection of the criminal justice and
mental health systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Ottawa: Carleton University.
Leroux, E. J., Pullman, L. E., Motayne, G., & Seto, M. C. (2016).
Victim age and the generalist versus specialist distinction in
adolescent sexual offending. Sexual Abuse, 28, 79–95. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/10790​63214​53581​4 [Study no. 18].
Letourneau, E. J., Henggeler, S. W., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A.,
McCart, M. R., Chapman, J. E., et al. (2009). Multisystemic
therapy for juvenile sexual offenders: 1-Year results from a
randomized effectiveness trial. Journal of Family Psychology,
23, 89–102. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0014​352.
Letourneau, E. J., Henggeler, S. W., McCart, M. R., Borduin, C. M.,
Schewe, P. A., & Armstrong, K. S. (2013). Two-year follow-up
of a randomized effectiveness trial evaluating MST for juve-
niles who sexually offend. Journal of Family Psychology, 27,
978–985. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0034​710.
Letourneau, E. J., & Miner, M. H. (2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A
case against the legal and clinical status quo. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 293–312. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/10790​63205​01700​304.
Lindell, A. K., & Campione-Barr, N. (2017). Continuity and change
in the family system across the transition from adolescence to
emerging adulthood. Marriage & Family Review, 53, 388–416.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/01494​929.2016.11842​12.
*Mackaronis, J. E. (2019). Assessing sexual interest in adolescents
who have sexually offended. Unpublished dataset [Study no.
19.1].
*Mackaronis, J. E., Byrne, P. M., & Strassberg, D. S. (2016). Assessing
sexual interest in adolescents who have sexually offended. Sexual
Abuse, 28, 96–115. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63214​53581​8
[Study no. 19].
Mallie, A. L., Viljoen, J. L., Mordell, S., Spice, A., & Roesch, R.
(2011). Childhood abuse and adolescent sexual re-offending: A
meta-analysis. Child & Youth Care Forum, 40, 401–417. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1056​6-010-9136-0.
Maniglio, R. (2011). The role of childhood trauma, psychological prob-
lems, and coping in the development of deviant sexual fantasies
in sexual offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 748–756.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.003.
Marshall, W. L., & Marshall, L. E. (2000). The origins of sexual
offending. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1, 250–263. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/15248​38000​00100​3003.
McCann, K., & Lussier, P. (2008). Antisociality, sexual deviance, and
sexual reoffending in juvenile sex offenders: A meta-analytical
investigation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 363–385.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/15412​04008​32026​0.
*McCuish, E. C. (2019). Abuse experiences of family members, child
maltreatment, and the development of sex offending among incar-
cerated adolescent males: Differences between adolescent sex
13
 Author's personal copy
offenders and adolescent non-sex offenders. Unpublished dataset
[Study no. 20.1].
*McCuish, E. C., Cale, J., & Corrado, R. R. (2017). Abuse experiences
of family members, child maltreatment, and the development of
sex offending among incarcerated adolescent males: Differences
between adolescent sex offenders and adolescent non-sex offend-
ers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 61, 127–149. https​://doi.org/10.1177/03066​24x15​
59749​2 [Study no. 20].
McDonald, C., & Martinez, K. (2017). Victims’ retrospective explana-
tions of sibling sexual violence. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,
26, 874–888. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10538​712.2017.13549​53.
*McKillop, N., Brown, S., Johnson, I., Smallbone, S., & Ogilvie, J. M.
(2017). Can systemic interventions designed to reduce reoffend-
ing by youth also reduce their victimization? Journal of Child
& Adolescent Trauma, 10, 41–50. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4065​
3-016-0123-y [Study no. 11].
McPhail, I. V., Hermann, C. A., Fernane, S., Fernandez, Y. M., Nunes,
K. L., & Cantor, J. M. (2019). Validity in phallometric testing for
sexual interests in children: A meta-analytic review. Assessment,
26, 535–551. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10731​91117​70613​9.
*Miner, M. H. (2019). Understanding sexual perpetration against chil-
dren: Effects of attachment style, interpersonal involvement, and
hypersexuality. Unpublished dataset [Study no. 21.1].
*Miner, M. H., Robinson, B. E., Knight, R. A., Berg, D., Swinburne
Romine, R., & Netland, J. (2010). Understanding sexual perpe-
tration against children: Effects of attachment style, interpersonal
involvement, and hypersexuality. Sexual Abuse, 22, 58–77. https​
://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63209​35318​3 [Study no. 21].
Miner, M. H., Swinburne Romine, R., Robinson, B. B. E., Berg, D.,
& Knight, R. A. (2016). Anxious attachment, social isolation,
and indicators of sex drive and compulsivity: Predictors of child
sexual abuse perpetration in adolescent males? Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 132–153. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/10790​63214​54758​5.
Monahan, K. (2010). Themes of adult sibling sexual abuse survivors
in later life: An initial exploration. Clinical Social Work Journal,
38, 361–369. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1061​5-010-0286-1.
*Morais, H. B., Alexander, A. A., Fix, R. L., & Burkhart, B. R.
(2018). Childhood sexual abuse in adolescents adjudicated
for sexual offenses: Mental health consequences and sexual
offending behaviors.  Sexual Abuse,  30, 23–42. https​: //doi.
org/10.1177/10790​63215​62522​4 [Study no. 12].
Murphy, W. D., DiLillo, D., Haynes, M. R., & Steere, E. (2001). An
exploration of factors related to deviant sexual arousal among
juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 13, 91–103. https​://doi.org/10.1023/a:10266​48220​
419.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disor-
der and delinquency: Key findings from longitudinal studies. Los
Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Seksueel Geweld tegen Kin-
deren. (2018). Dadermonitor seksueel geweld tegen kinderen
2013–2017. Den Haag: Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en
Seksueel Geweld tegen Kinderen.
Ogilvie, J. M., Stewart, A. L., Chan, R. C., & Shum, D. H. (2011). Neu-
ropsychological measures of executive function and antisocial
behavior: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 49, 1063–1107. https​
://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00252​.x.
Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children
to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22,
271–295. https​://doi.org/10.1016/s0272​-7358(01)00091​-5.
*Parks, G. A. (2019). Risk factors for adolescent sex offender recidi-
vism: Evaluation of predictive factors and comparison of three
groups based upon victim type. Unpublished dataset [Study no.
22.1].
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
*Parks, G. A., & Bard, D. E. (2006). Risk factors for adolescent sex
offender recidivism: Evaluation of predictive factors and com-
parison of three groups based upon victim type. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 319–342. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/10790​63206​01800​402 [Study no. 22].
Pedneault, C. I., Babchishin, K. M., Lalumière, M. L., & Seto, M. C.
(2019). The association between childhood sexual abuse and sex-
ual coercion in men: A test of possible mediators. Journal of Sex-
ual Aggression. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13552​600.2019.16135​
75.
*Perez, E. M. (2017). Differences Between Intrafamilial and Extrafa-
milial Adolescent Sex Offenders (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Alliant International University, Fresno, United States of
America [Study no. 3].
Planty, M., Langton, L., Krebs, C., Berzofsky, M., & Smiley-McDon-
ald, H. (2013). Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010
(U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 240655). Retrieved from:
https​://www.bjs.gov/conte​nt/pub/pdf/fvsv9​410.pdf.
Pullman, L. E. (2018). Examining the roles of early proximity, degree
of genetic relatedness, and disgust in explaining father-daughter
and brother-sister incest (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
Pullman, L. E., Babchishin, K., & Seto, M. C. (2019). An examination
of the Westermarck hypothesis and the role of disgust in incest
avoidance among fathers. Evolutionary Psychology. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/14747​04919​84992​4.
Pullman, L. E., Sawatsky, M. L., Babchishin, K. M., McPhail, I.
V., & Seto, M. C. (2017). Differences between biological and
sociolegal incest offenders: A meta-analysis. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 34, 228–237. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2017.01.003.
Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., & Fisher, H. L. (2013). The
prevalence and impact of child maltreatment and other types of
victimization in the UK: Findings from a population survey of
caregivers, children and young people and young adults. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 37, 801–813. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiab​
u.2013.02.004.
*Rayment-McHugh, S., & Nisbet, I. (2003, May). Sibling incest offend-
ers as a subset of adolescent sexual offenders. Paper presented at
the Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Reso-
lution Conference, Adelaide, Australia. Retrieved from: https​://
epubs​.scu.edu.au/ccyp_pubs/6/. [Study no. 4].
*Richardson, G., Kelly, T. P., Bhate, S. R., & Graham, F. (1997).
Group differences in abuser and abuse characteristics in a Brit-
ish sample of sexually abusive adolescents. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 9, 239–257. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/10790​63297​00900​307 [Study no. 5].
*Rojas, E. Y., & Gretton, H. M. (2007). Background, offence char-
acteristics, and criminal outcomes of Aboriginal youth who
sexually offend: A closer look at Aboriginal youth intervention
needs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19,
257–283. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63207​01900​306 [Study
no. 14].
Rojas, E. Y., & Olver, M. E. (2019). Validity and reliability of the
violence risk scale-youth sexual offense version. Sexual Abuse.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63219​85806​4.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication
bias in meta-analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.
Rudd, J. M., & Herzberger, S. D. (1999). Brother-sister incest—
father-daughter incest: A comparison of characteristics and
consequences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 915–928. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/s0145​-2134(99)00058​-7.
Sánchez-Meca, J., Chacón-Moscoso, S., & Marín-Martínez, F.
(2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in
meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8, 448–467. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/1082-989x.8.4.448.
 Author's personal copy
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Schofield, T. J., Lee, R. D., & Merrick, M. T. (2013). Safe, stable,
nurturing relationships as a moderator of intergenerational
continuity of child maltreatment: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 53, S32–S38. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadoh​ealth​.2013.05.004.
Schulze, R. (2007). Cur rent methods for meta-analysis:
Approaches, issues, and developments. Zeitschrift für Psy-
chologie/Journal of Psychology, 215, 90–103. https​: //doi.
org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.90.
Seto, M. C. (2019). The motivation-facilitation model of sex-
ual offending. Sexual Abuse, 31(1), 3–24. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1177/10790​63217​72091​9.
Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against chil-
dren: Theory, assessment, and intervention (2nd ed.). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Seto, M. C., Babchishin, K. M., Pullman, L. E., & McPhail, I. V.
(2015). The puzzle of intrafamilial child sexual abuse: A meta-
analysis comparing intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders
with child victims. Clinical Psychology Review, 39, 42–57.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.04.001.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about
male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of expla-
nations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
526–575. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0019​700.
Seto, M. C., Murphy, W. D., Page, J., & Ennis, L. (2003). Detecting
anomalous sexual interests in juvenile sex offenders. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 118–130. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb072​98.x.
Smith, E. P., Faulk, M., & Sizer, M. A. (2016). Exploring the meso-
system: The roles of community, family, and peers in ado-
lescent delinquency and positive youth development. Youth
& Society, 48, 318–343. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00441​18x13​
49158​1.
Smith, H., & Israel, E. (1987). Sibling incest: A study of the dynamics
of 25 cases. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 101–108. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/0145-2134(87)90038​-x.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a
gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociol-
ogy, 22, 459–487. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev.soc.22.1.459.
Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization
perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising preva-
lence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.007.
Stephens, S., Seto, M. C., Goodwill, A. M., & Cantor, J. M. (2018). The
relationships between victim age, gender, and relationship poly-
morphism and sexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse, 30(2), 132–146.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63216​63098​3.
Suldo, S., Thalji, A., & Ferron, J. (2011). Longitudinal academic out-
comes predicted by early adolescents’ subjective well-being,
psychopathology, and mental health status yielded from a dual
factor model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 17–30. https​
://doi.org/10.1080/17439​760.2010.53677​4.
Tewksbury, R. (2012). Stigmatization of sex offenders. Deviant Behav-
ior, 33, 606–623. https​://doi.org/10.1080/01639​625.2011.63669​
0.
Thornberry, T. P., & Henry, K. L. (2013). Intergenerational continu-
ity in maltreatment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41,
555–569. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1080​2-012-9697-5.
Thornton, J. A., Stevens, G., Grant, J., Indermaur, D., Chamarette,
C., & Halse, A. (2008). Intrafamilial adolescent sex offenders:
Family functioning and treatment. Journal of Family Studies, 14,
362–375. https​://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.14.2-3.362.
*Tidefors, I., Arvidsson, H., Ingevaldson, S., & Larsson, M. (2010).
Sibling incest: A literature review and a clinical study. Journal of
Sexual Aggression, 16, 347–360. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13552​
60090​35116​67 [Study no. 6].
Ueda, M. (2017). Developmental risk factors of juvenile sex offend-
ers by victim age: An implication for specialized treatment pro-
grams. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 122–128. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.09.006.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2018). Projected 5-year
age groups and sex composition: Main projections series for the
United States, 2017–2060. Retrieved from: https​://www.censu​
s.gov/data/table ​ s /2017/demo/poppr ​ o j/2017-summa ​ r y-table​
s.html.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Juveniles who commit sexual
offenses against minors (The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention, NCJ Publication No. 227763). Retrieved
from: https​://www.ncjrs​.gov/pdffi​les1/ojjdp​/22776​3.pdf.
*Van den Berg, C. (2019). Juvenile sexual delinquents: Contrasting
child abusers with peer abusers. Unpublished dataset [Study no.
23.1].
Van den Berg, C., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2017). The juvenile
sex offender: Criminal careers and life events. Sexual Abuse, 29,
81–101. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63215​58096​7.
Van der Stouwe, T., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J. J., Deković, M., &
Van der Laan, P. H. (2014). The effectiveness of multisystemic
therapy (MST): A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review,
34, 468–481. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.006.
*Van Vugt, E. S. (2019). Similarities and differences between youth
who engaged in intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexually abusive
behavior: An exploratory study. Unpublished dataset [Study no.
24.1].
*Van Vugt, E., & Garofalo, C. (2020). Similarities and differences
between youth who engaged in intrafamilial and extrafamilial
sexually abusive behavior: An exploratory study. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/03066​24x20​91189​7 [Study no. 24].
Varma, K. N., & Leroux, E. J. (2019). Understanding the nature and
scope of adolescent sexual offending across Canada. In S. Kohm,
K. Walby, K. Gorkoff, & K. Maier (Eds.), The annual review of
interdisciplinary justice research (Vol. 8, pp. 120–145). Win-
nipeg: Centre for Interdisciplinary Justice Studies.
*Veneziano, C. (2019). The relationship between adolescent sex
offender behaviors and victim characteristics with prior victimi-
zation. Unpublished dataset [Study no. 25.1].
*Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & LeGrand, S. (2000). The relationship
between adolescent sex offender behaviors and victim charac-
teristics with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 15, 363–374. https​://doi.org/10.1177/08862​60000​15004​
002 [Study no. 25].
Vess, J., & Skelton, A. (2010). Sexual and violent recidivism by
offender type and actuarial risk: Reoffending rates for rapists,
child molesters and mixed-victim offenders. Psychology, Crime
& Law, 16, 541–554. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10683​16080​26129​
08.
*Viljoen, J. L. (2019). Sexual offending in adolescence: A comparison
of sibling offenders and nonsibling offenders across domains of
risk and treatment need. Additional unpublished data [Study no.
2.1].
Viljoen, J. L., Mordell, S., & Beneteau, J. L. (2012). Prediction of
adolescent sexual reoffending: A meta-analysis of the J-SOAP-II,
ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II, and Static-99. Law and Human Behav-
ior, 36, 423–438. https​://doi.org/10.1037/h0093​938.
Ward, T., Polaschek, D. L., & Beech, A. R. (2006). Theories of sexual
offending (Vol. 21). Chichester: Wiley.
Ward, T., & Siegert, R. J. (2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of
child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective. Psychology,
Crime and Law, 8, 319–351. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/106831​ 6020​
84018​23.
*Way, I. (2019). Delinquent histories of adolescents adjudicated for
criminal sexual conduct. Unpublished dataset [Study no. 26.1].
13
 Author's personal copy
*Way, I., & Urbaniak, D. (2008). Delinquent histories of adolescents
adjudicated for criminal sexual conduct. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 23, 1197–1212. https​://doi.org/10.1177/08862​60508​
31429​6 [Study no. 26].
White, H. R., Tice, P. C., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2002).
Illegal acts committed by adolescents under the influence of alco-
hol and drugs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
39, 131–152. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00224​27802​03900​201.
Willard, S. (2014). The relationship between incest victimization and
incest perpetration in adolescent registered juvenile sex offend-
ers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh.
Wolf, A. P. (2014). Incest avoidance and the incest taboos: Two aspects
of human nature. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
*Worling, J. R. (1995). Adolescent sibling-incest offenders: Differ-
ences in family and individual functioning when compared to
13
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
adolescent nonsibling sex offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19,
633–643. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00021​-y [Study
no. 7].
*Yates, P., Allardyce, S., & MacQueen, S. (2012). Children who dis-
play harmful sexual behaviour: Assessing the risks of boys abus-
ing at home, in the community or across both settings. Journal
of Sexual Aggression, 18, 23–35. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13552​
600.2011.63452​7 [Study no. 8].
Yoder, J. R., Hansen, J., Ruch, D., & Hodge, A. (2016). Effects of
school-based risk and protective factors on treatment success
among youth adjudicated of a sexual crime. Child Sexual Abuse,
25, 310–325. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10538​712.2016.11376​68.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.