English
Français
Deutsch
Español
;
Will "revolutionary" Diana Screen End Pedophile Menace?
Anxious to mend its reputation and plug the money drain, the Vatican just announced a new fix: Candidates for the priesthood will undergo psychological screening to determine their suitability for the job. Painting a pseudo-scientific veneer on the campaign, the Vatican said "expert" psychologists will screen select candidates on a case-by-case basis.
Gene Abel is a psychiatrist who invented the controversial Abel Screen, which measures sexual proclivities based on how long men look at visual images of different types of models. Abel is promoting a new "pass/fail" test called the Diana Screen as a "breakthrough in technology" that can accurately identify men who have molested children.
In the blogosphere I bumped into a group of sex offenders discussing how easy it is to beat the test.
The author finds a false positive rate of at least 50 percent. Even if it is just a screening test, psychologists should be cautious in administering a test with such a high false-positive rate and no published, peer-reviewed data on its reliability or validity.
More fundamentally, this type of testing raises philosophical issues about how far society should go in the name of protecting children, especially when most victimization is done not by teachers or amusement park workers but by family members.
Anxious to mend its reputation and plug the money drain, the Vatican just announced a new fix: Candidates for the priesthood will undergo psychological screening to determine their suitability for the job. Painting a pseudo-scientific veneer on the campaign, the Vatican said "expert" psychologists will screen select candidates on a case-by-case basis.
Gene Abel is a psychiatrist who invented the controversial Abel Screen, which measures sexual proclivities based on how long men look at visual images of different types of models. Abel is promoting a new "pass/fail" test called the Diana Screen as a "breakthrough in technology" that can accurately identify men who have molested children.
In the blogosphere I bumped into a group of sex offenders discussing how easy it is to beat the test.
The author finds a false positive rate of at least 50 percent. Even if it is just a screening test, psychologists should be cautious in administering a test with such a high false-positive rate and no published, peer-reviewed data on its reliability or validity.
More fundamentally, this type of testing raises philosophical issues about how far society should go in the name of protecting children, especially when most victimization is done not by teachers or amusement park workers but by family members.