Talk:Penile plethysmograph

Regarding

Regarding stimuli, there are still plenty of researchers using explicit depictions of sexual activity in their stimuli sets. Do a quick topline on Pubmed for citations. Granted, it is hackwork by a clique at Northwestern University led by J. Michael Bailey, but they are using explicit stimuli nonetheless. Jokestress 14:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the Jokestress would like to expand on her denouncement of the Bailey clique - why is it that she views the research as "hackwork"? 66.241.140.2 20:10, 19 May 2005

Bailey and friends are engaged in modern-day phrenology. They have used pseudoscientific methodology and devices to promote their pet theories. Real scientists are looking at the brain, not the groin, for data on sexual differentiation in sexual orientation. The best example was Bailey and friends' 2003 science by press release heralding findings using transsexual women as a control group. The Northwestern press release asserted these subjects had "the brains of men but the genitals of women." Obviously, those who are transsexual do not have typical "brains of men" (whatever that means), and they are poor controls because their brains may have been altered by exogenous hormones. Note that the press release is no longer available in the Northwestern online PR archives. Those interested in a serious discussion of sexual orientation research should look at the work being done via fMRI and other legitimate biometric devices. Jokestress 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not exactly "real scientists" looking at the brain. It's "rich scientists". 65.34.186.143 1 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Since Bailey's "bonerology" work has been taxpayer-funded, and he is involved in a $2.1 million NIH study of homosexuality, I wouldn't exactly call him a "poor scientist," unless we are talking about ethics and methodology. In that instance, I'd say he's one of the poorest scientists working today. Jokestress 2 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Use in Employment Screenings (?)

Does any part of the world use such devices to screen job applicants for jobs that involve working with children? (So when they view a slideshow of attractive women, then attractive men, then attractive underage girls, then attractive underage boys, this PPS graph indicates who they're attracted to)

If yes, what parts of the world and why? --Shultz 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

From one of the sources listed in the entry:

"Some of the uses of the device raise constitutional issues. For example, submission to the PPG test as a condition for employment, for enlistment into the armed forces, or for granting custody of children. Some penal institutions have made submission to the PPG a condition of parole, even though the device's usefulness as a predictor of behavior is unproven. The practice has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (1995). Parole Boards have great latitude in establishing conditions for parole. These conditions do not have to meet the same rigorous standards as are required before something allegedly scientific can be admitted as evidence in a trial. Nor do the normal liberties and constitutional protections of citizenship automatically apply to one being paroled."

"From a scientific, moral and legal point of view, what should matter is whether a person gives in to perverse desires and commits sex crimes. It is neither immoral nor a crime to get aroused." [1] Jokestress 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced claims on evidence-gathering capabilities

The US section makes some very strong claims on definitiveness of the results, giving no specific sources. I've tagged them with citeneeded's, but unless someone actually goes and finds reliable articles to support them, I'd suggest removing those claims. Strong statements regarding credibility in criminal cases simply cannot go without verifiable sources. mathrick 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The statements are from the Smith citation in the references. I'll pull the quotes sometime soon unless you want to. Jokestress 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This IP editor injected all the unsourced original research. I removed all of it and will source the rest appropriately. Jokestress 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarke Institute editors

I see several SPA editors are busy going through any article containing criticism of Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and removing information that contradicts findings and philosophies of Clarke Institute employees. Throughout 2008, I will add back the information they are trying to suppress, such as the statements about Kurt Freund's use of PPG on military personnel in the former Czechoslovakia as part of government-sponsored programs to identify and "cure" gay males:

"Freund (1957) developed the first device, which measured penile volume changes... to distinguish heterosexual and homosexual males for the Czechoslovakian army." W O'Donohue, E Letourneau. The psychometric properties of the penile tumescence assessment of child molesters. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 1992

"Freund made a large-scale attempt in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s to change the sexual orientation of homosexuals to a heterosexual orientation through the use of behavioral aversive therapy." Brzek A, Hubalek S. Homosexuals in Eastern Europe: Mental Health and Psychotherapy Issues. in Psychopathology and Psychotherapy in Homosexuality, Ed. Michael W. Ross, p. 160.

Jokestress (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Were any reliable sources deleted or just unsourced claims?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Smith and several others you deleted are reliable sources. Jokestress (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you mean? The only Smith I see is an external link to a private lawfirm that was hired to provide an opinion. Are you saying that that is reliable? What are the other references you're thinking of?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Smith is a legal document presented in limine which has extensive references to the literature regarding unreliability and inaccuracy of PPG. The Carroll is from a book. There are others you deleted that appear to fall under WP:RS. Jokestress (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure; anything submitted in court can be called a legal document. That doesn't make them any more reliable or true, however; they are still just opinions-for-hire. If you want to cite the actual evidence, I would certainly have no objection.
What do you mean by "The Carroll"? I can't find anything I deleted with that name.
And what are the others? Isn't the point of this page to discuss them so that we (and anyone else interested) can decide which (if any) are reliable and which (if any) are not? There is not way to discuss what is not getting named.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth. As such, a legal memorandum presented in court regarding the scientific unreliability of PPG is both verifiable and a reliable source. "The Carroll" is Robert Todd Carroll's The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. (Wiley 2003). That book and the companion website dismantle many of the arguments put forth by proponents of PPG. You deleted both sources. I am going to be away for a few days, but perhaps during that time you will heed the requests of numerous editors who suggest that you familiarize yourself with key policies before making extensive (and often erroneous) edits to controversial articles. It's not uncommon for people to edit articles which are of interest to them or in their area of knowledge, but your activity to date is characteristic of an SPA POV warrior whose goals are quite clear to any seasoned editor. You may also want to read WP:COI since I believe it is relevant in your case for CAMH-related articles. Jokestress (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Verify" means to prove the truth. Using primary sources instead of secondary (and teriary) sources is how a scholar gets closer to the truth. Otherwise, one is not learning or teaching, one is merely reiterating other peoples' POVs.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As other editors have already explained to you, secondary and tertiary sources are often preferred on Wikipedia. Please slow down and take some time to familiarize yourself with how things work here. You will find the editing experience much more pleasant and productive if you do. This ain't academia (thank goodness). It's a collaborative encyclopedia where everyone works together when it's at its best. People who want to pick fights and be POV warriors usually tire of the process quickly, so take a deep breath and learn to work with other editors. You have lots to contribute, but you need to dial it down a bit without losing your enthusiasm. See you in a few days. Jokestress (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree entirely that secondary and other sources can be useful in certain circumstances. That circumstance is not for merely citing someone else's POVs to get around the admonition of expressing one's own. If you look more closely at my record, you will find not only those who think I should change, but also those who apologized to me and those who have thanked me for helping others find a consensus.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding lawyers’ opinions as a source, I have posted the question on WP:Verifiability. The only person to respond so far agreed with me that “a lawyer's memo in court is easily not WP:RELIABLE.” You might want to post your own comment on that page in order to provide your own side of the question. Moreover, one would also seem to have to indicate what the lawyer for the other side said in court order to avoid a violation of WP:NPOV. Phallometry, as you've said yourself here and on tsroadmap (which skepdic links to), is controversial, increasing the need to use the best of sources available. Finally, it is legal decisions made—not arguments presented—that are reliable sources.
  
• Regarding Carroll, there is nothing near a consensus that skepdic.com is reliable, according to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#The_Skeptic.27s_Dictionary and WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Skeptic.27s_dictionary. Although there are individual people who say that skepdic is always reliable as a source and some who say it’s never reliable as a source, the bulk of opinions offered that it could be appropriate only in some circumstances, such as if it were noted merely as an opinion in the text, if no primary sources on the topic were available, if the reference was about a skepdic entry on which Carroll was actually an expert (such as philosophy), etc. The link I deleted from the PPG page was neither noted as an opinion nor about philosophy, and there exist many primary resources on the topic, some of which I have added to the PPG page.
  

So, I believe I am on very firm ground in having removed both Smith and Carroll. Additional conversation on this might be taken to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

I have no basis or motivation to say that PPG is perfect, and I would have no objection to anyone adding reliable primary sources that say so. Perhaps you might locate some by going to the actual medical literature on which the tertiary opinions were based.

Finally, I have not violated COI nor any other policy. If you have any evidence to the contrary, feel free to report it to whomever you see fit. All I can do is to promise to cooperate fully with whoever has the authority to investigate it (which I do promise).

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was away when this came in. Wikipeidia's verifiability, not truth tenet states that it doesn't matter if Carroll is right or wrong, what matters is that his statements can be verified. In this case, since they appear in a published book, they are verifiable and thus reliable. Jokestress (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merely being published does not qualify a book as a reliable source. WP:Verifiability indicates that is "books published in university presses; university-level textbooks" that are reliable sources, but that "self-published books" are not. The Skeptic's Dictionary is neither, making it a questionable source. The consensus made made in WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#The_Skeptic.27s_Dictionary and WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Skeptic.27s_dictionary make no distinction between the web version and the printed version and show a lack of consensus for inclusion. Without such a consensus for inclusion, one cannot meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence rule that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (That is, there must a consensus for inclusion, not a lack of consensus for exclusion.)

Referring to me as "SPA" is a violation of the recommendations in WP:SPA and the policy in WP:NPA. I have pointed this out to you previously.[2]

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oopsie. I typed in "reply" and hit Enter - must've auto-filled "reply to SPA" from the drop-down. So we are agreed the Carroll book meets WP:V? Jokestress (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No. In the discussions I have been able to locate and which I have inserted above, the WP consensus was repeatedly that Carroll does not meet WP:RS, which makes assessment of WP:V moot. If I have missed any WP indication of otherwise, you have not cited yet it.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be a properly referenced reference to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Outside the Canada section. John Nevard (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There was; it was removed. I just added it back. There were several external links that discussed Daubert, also removed as "unreliable" by MarionTheLibrarian. Jokestress (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the reliability of that source for claims of fact may be questionable. This might be a good start for further investigation. John Nevard (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Court findings are reliable, arguments made by a lawyer are not. In court, a lawyer can make any kind of an argument, but those arguments are not reliable sources: Lawyers are, of course, paid specifically to argue for one (and only one) side of a case.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Article organization

I am trying to figure out a way to organize the extensive literature which is either supportive or critical of this device. There appear to be two basic types:

1. Clinical reliability
2. Legal reliability

Interestingly, the conclusions are oppositional. Also, as it stands, the United States and Canada sections are essentially about legal status only. We could either make two sections as named above, or put all the clinical reliability under the current Uses section, divided by applications. Right now the Uses section consists almost entirely of publications asserting reliability, which certainly needs to be expanded to describe how reliable (in some cases not very), preferably with statistics. If we go this way, maybe the other section could be called Legal status, with subheads for each country (since it certainly has been considered outside North America). Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question would be easier to answer if more precise language were used.

• Accuracy of diagnostic tests are expressed as sensitivity and specificity.
• Legal questions are admissibility.
• The term reliability refers to getting the same result when someone is tested twice.

The conclusions I am aware of are actually pretty consistent. I suspect that if one separates properly the specific issues, the patterns will become clearer: PPG results are sufficiently sensitive and specific for clinical purposes, inadmissible for determining guilt, but admissible for the sentencing and subsequent phases of legal proceedings. There are only very few studies of reliability.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In Daubert, the language regarding admissibility is relevancy and reliability. One of the issues with controversial devices like this is the disconnect between clinical and legal definitions, because reliability in the legal sense has a much broader meaning than merely a reproducible/predictive result. That said, perhaps "Diagnostic accuracy" and "Legal admissibility" are sufficient? Jokestress (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I have put in "Reliability and validity," which is taken from the DSM citation. I believe that is more encompassing of the clinical issues. We can discuss the merits of that vs. "Diagnostic accuracy." Jokestress (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For diagnostic purposes, accuracy is a synonym for validity. The term reliability in that context is more complicated and perhaps too complicated for a non-expert. Specifically, reliability puts a ceiling on the validity statistics of a diagnostic test. Because there are several studies that jump right to the chase and give the validity stats (that is, the sensitivity and specificity rates) and only very few studies that isolate the reliability of the tests, it might be wise to stick to validity findings which are necessarily bound by the reliability already.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reasons, one should take care to separate the literatures on volumetric and circumferencial PPG. Volumetric PPG has been more examined scientifically, but circumferencial PPG has been more examined legally.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

It also does not provide the definition of operative trauma.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the term needs to be defined. A certain familiarity of the common vocabulary in the relevant subject is necessary for understanding any article. If we happen to have an article on operative trauma, a link to it would be helpful. It should not be a goal to embed dictionary definitions of all the technical terms in an article. --71.162.233.193 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an explaination of the term in the context of this article is warranted, of course Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have wiktionary for that.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

52%!?

52% accurate is about as accurate as tossing a coin. How can that be claimed to be 'proven'?

Disclosure

I have added an external link to the main page: http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/Phallometry_Lecture.html. Because the author of that document is a colleague of mine, I thought it prudent to indicate it here.— James Cantor (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliability/validity section

The following recent additions by User:Psychofilia are original research without any reliable sources. I have moved them here for discussion.

There are multiple types of psychometric validity (e.g., discriminant, predictive, diagnostic, concurrent) in the study of psychosexual instruments, including the PPG. Many phallometric studies report findings regarding one example of discriminant validity, which entails comparing the erectile responses of a group of known sex offenders to those of a control group composed of nonsexual offenders or of nonoffenders. Research demonstrates that the capacity of the PPG to distinguish, in a predictable manner, between certain types of sex offenders (e.g., extrafamilial child molesters) and controls (e.g., non-molesters) is good.

However, some experts would argue that this particular example of discriminant validity constitutes a fairly weak test of the overall validity of PPG, at least in applied settings, and does not say anything about the instrument’s diagnostic validity (which may also be considered a more refined example of discriminant validity). In many North American sexological clinics, a salient assessment question in child sexual abuse cases is, "Does this client have a sexual interest in, or sexual preference for, prepubescent children?" This question follows from the generally accepted finding that a sizeable portion of men convicted of molesting a child is not pedophilic. Moreover, if a new client's self report is not known to be credible, a phallometric assessment is one of a very few alternatives to a standard clinical/forensic interview for the detection of deviant erotic interests. Of course, the true meaning of such an assessment is highly contingent on the ability of PPG to distinguish pedophilic from nonpedophilic child molesters, or its diagnostic validity (a much stronger test of the instrument’s overall validity). Nevertheless, there is little published empirical research on the diagnostic validity of PPG. This is likely because of the difficulty in constructing – without using phallometric testing – an adequate (and large enough) sample of clearly pedophilic men that would constitute the ultimate criterion.

Seriously?? Just offer anonymous paid studies to various fetishist communities (fetlife, sexualized fanfiction sites, erotic comic book/ hentai manga communities, etc etc etc). Key words: paid, anonymous, self-identification.....dont even need to stick to recruiting self professed non offending paedophiles, since a test for any self-admitted taboo fetish could give validity data, and a control for a more acceptable fetish off a questionaire (say, breast size, hair colour, or race) could act as control. However, all itll ever give yiy is their fantasies, not a prediction of any sort of actions. Most of those you call "deviant" are painfully shy, passive, and additionally have a propensity for swlf flagellation - very much like the "bisexual in denial homophobes" the test claims to find in droves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.70.219 (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, the PPG can be said to have a high level of face validity (both a blessing and a curse), and its specificity is impressive (i.e., its false positive rate is low); indeed, there are few conceivable reasons why a man in a laboratory setting would become erect during the presentation of a deviant stimulus except that he is sexually excited by that stimulus. Yet, the instrument’s less-than-ideal sensitivity – with its associated high false-negative rate – is poor; this is due largely to the ability of some test-takers to suppress and thereby distort their true erectile responses to deviant stimuli.

Attempts at measuring reliability of the PPG entail their own conceptual limitations. It makes little sense to expect to obtain a high test-retest reliability coefficient in a population of men who are both motivated to distort their responses and, in all likelihood, more skilled at such distortion – due to a practice effect – during the second test administration than during the initial administration.

I also added back the quotation from the DSM-IV. If you have citations for the above statements, please add them before adding them back to the article. Jokestress (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this section of the page can use a lot of work, as there is some research on the sensitivity and specificity of phallometry with sexual offenders, specifically those with child victims. In the coming months I will work to improve this section of the page to add in this research so that the page contains an indication of the sensitivity and specificity of certain phallometric measures.Ian V. McPhail (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting information/tone in the article

The wording in the section for reliability and validity to me seems to be mostly sufficiently neutral. Though I still feel I have unanswered questions when reading it. Namely that it's not exactly clear how useful or accurate the tool actually is in regards to testing different things relating to sexuality.

Also, two sections of the article seem to be at odds. The Utility section and the legal admissibility section. One painting it as an accurate instrument for determining heterosexuals from homosexuals, pedophiles from non pedophiles and so on...and one section stating that it's extremely unreliable and inadmissible in court due to it's unreliability, and it's high danger for false negatives/positives. If it's not good enough for court, doesn't meet the Frye Standard, and is unreliable...why are scientific studies performed with this instrument included on this page? That seems somehow...backwards? Especially when the tone in the section these studies are included in aren't worded in such a way that questions it's reliability.

This part is also worded poorly and does not coincide with the findings of the study it references: "One study showed that homophobic men who have claimed to be heterosexual undergo arousal when given homosexual stimuli." The study found that a significant number of men who self identified as homophobic heterosexuals experienced varying levels of arousal when exposed to homosexual video and audio stimuli, but not all did. The study also offered several theories on why the men experienced arousal and one of their theories included the possibility that they were not necessarily homosexual/bisexual, and that their reaction could have been triggered by other factors. This sentence also doesn't note that a significant number of men who identified as non-homophobic heterosexuals also experienced varying degrees of arousal. Just not as significant of a portion as the homophobic men. Just as a personal gripe, the study only includes 35 homophobic males which is simply not a large enough sample to make conclusive statements like the one above. Anyways, the point is: The wording of this particular phrase gives the impression that all homophobic men are actually homosexual, which is not the conclusion the study reached. Also, the link to the PDF is dead. I'm not sure if there's another one up somewhere.

So I know that's a lot of random ranting, but I think the article needs to be a little clearer and I'm not sure how to best balance it out. If the instrument is currently deemed unreliable in accurately determining sexuality, should we be including studies on this very same page that use the instrument for their research? Perhaps a separate page for research conducted with Penile Plethysmographs should be created to avoid this issue? Or simply word the section regarding it's accuracy to be more...well, accurate. BeardedScholar (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EL's

An anonymous editor has twice re-inserted external links to commercial and non-expert websites. Although I am sure that discussion can be had over whether any particular external link meets WP:ELNO, the anonymous editor has not responded to my talk requests to justify how/why the deleted sites should in fact be included on this page.

Because the anon editor started re-adding the sites at the same time (and with the same edits, accusations, and lack of response to talk requests) as user:Jokestress (who maintains lengthy off-wiki attack sites on this topic and every scientist associated with it), particular caution should be applied in deciding what is and is not encyclopedic and why.— James Cantor (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that you stop adding links sitewide that promote you and your work and removing links critical of you and your work. It's a clear conflict of interest, as are nearly all the edits you have ever made. There is a substantial amount of sourcing that questions the validity, reliability, and ethics of your life's work, as well as your non-notable role in the perpetuation of some ideas deemed problematic by others. Your manipulation of these topics is a clear conflict of interest violation. Jokestress (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I have been DELETING links from this page...making the accusation rather silly. (Although I note that I did misdescribe a deletion as an addition in an edit summary.) If you believe that the links I removed should in fact appear on the page (despite that they consist of someone's term paper and some lawyer's online ad), then you should be making that argument instead of making personal attacks. Personally, I believe the EL's in question should be removed.

2. My being a recognized authority on this topic does not disqualify me from editing this page. In fact, as Jimbo Wales said, "Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a 'multiplier effect', says Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. 'Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way,' he says."

3. COI is not a synonym for expert editor. If any edit I made has been inappropriate, feel free of course to report it to WP:COI/N.

3. Your off-wiki attacks against phallometry and off-wiki attacks against any scientist associated with it, however, would reasonably constitute a COI problem.

4. WP is not the place to bring your long-standing battle against professional sex researchers in your belief that you are righting a great wrong.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are a self-promoter, not an expert. There is a difference between science and quackery. Stay tuned. Jokestress (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, so tuned. I'll add it to your other unfulfilled promises: [3], [4], etc.

Meanwhile, if we can get back to mainpage: You and the anon editor (assuming no puppetry) have added EL's directing readers to a term paper and to a lawyer's website advertising his services. I have asked four (?) times how/why these links should be included, despite their clear violation of WP:ELNO, and the only response either of you provide is that the edit came from me (which is not a valid reason, even if I did have a conflict here.) Do you have a WP-valid justification?

— James Cantor (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversial

The sentence in question: "Penile plethysmography (PPG), or "phallometry", is a controversial type of plethysmograph that measures changes in blood flow in the penis."
First off, "plethysmography" is not a "type of plethysmograph". The use of a device is not the device itself. Normally I'd just correct the grammatical error without comment, but I think it's instructive, considering that the real issue here also deals with a contrast between a device and its use.
Specifically, I see no way in which a little piece of rubber and wire can be inherently controversial. Citations say that it has been used on sex offenders of old age and young, and whatever my opinions on such usage, I won't claim it's uncontroversial. This is not, however, the only standard usage of the device, and should not be the exclusive focus of this article The initial paragraphs already discuss the issue of accuracy, and there are well-established sections on legal admissibility and ethics, which seem to me quite sufficient to discuss issues surrounding its use. To stick the word "controversial" into the opening sentence of an article on a tool of measurement, though, with nothing to support it but a citation on an isolated, extreme case of controversial use, strikes me as nothing more than FUD. Salvar (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As you point out, the article title describes the device, but the first sentence describes the use. Analogues are polygraph, where our article makes it clear that the device is generally considered pseudoscientific. Perhaps we should have separate articles, as we do with calipers and phrenology. As you note, calipers themselves are not controversial. Measurements taken with PPG are not controversial, but claims made based on those measurements, and the conditions under which the measurements are taken, are quite controversial. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be controversial since it specifically targets men. That is, unless you can measure a woman's state of arousal in a test. 24.237.46.217 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What the..?

no sexual interest or preference, UNLESS ACTED UPON IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER, is in any way damning. Its unconstitutional. And yes, even the oft-mentioned paedophiliac or incestuous desires are 100% legal, while judging one for such is not.... Men and women can be attracted to kids (or whatever else) until the cows come home if they: a) reign in their desires, b) roleplay with consenting adults, c) engage in relationships with consenting adults of petite or short stature, youthful apprarance, dwarfism, etc etc to their hearts' content... In fact, frowning upon such would constitute undue discrimination also against persons of such appearance or stature, as it would essentially create a taboo to deem attractive or engage in personal relationships with short/petite/little people, thus infringing greatly on their right to "the pursuit of happiness". All for being born with a juvenile appearance or small size lasting unto adulthood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.70.219 (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

homophobic?

"A phallometric study indicated that men who are more homophobic show greater penile arousal to stimuli depicting gay sex than do less homophobic men."
I feel offended by the above statement. Is it by chance an act of vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.153.13 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not an act of vandalism, it is indeed a real finding. Part of the idea behind this research is that for men who are more homophobic (that is, have stronger negative feelings toward homosexual men), a least some of their dislike of homosexual males or homosexuality is caused by their own sexuality that might include some sexual arousal to other men. This research was published in one of the top journals for psychopathology research, so we can safely assume the study had solid methodological rigor and theoretical grounding. As well, I know that other researchers are continuing this line of research currently. I cannot speak to your offence, but I thought I would share these thoughts about the science. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

'Utility' Section

I have been overhauling and updating the 'Utility' section on this page. Specifically, I've added a number of findings from the empirical literature on the sensitivity and specificity of different phallometric tests designed to assess for pedophilic, hebephilic, and pedohebephilic arousal. Having someone who is knowledgeable in this area review these sections would be useful. In addition, I am relatively new to being a Wikipedia editor and while I've tried to be neutral and succinct in presenting the research studies, reviewing and revising how this information is presented will likely be very helpful. Thanks. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian V. McPhail, I've seen your edits to the article. For this topic, we should be using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. But, per WP:MEDDATE, we can also relax the strict WP:MEDRS standard in cases "where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Editors other than myself who can help you with this material include James Cantor (I saw you cite his work in the article), Legitimus and KateWishing. Editors at WP:Med can also help. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Flyer22! And I was unaware (being a newbie) of WP:MEDRS and the source standards for the medical content area, so thanks for bringing this WP page to my attention. Your point about relaxing the standard makes perfect sense in this domain. I'm doing a lot of research in the area of phallometry and know of no meta-analyses looking at pedophilia, hebephilia, and pedohebephilia as assessed by phallometry. Though there are a great many narrative reviews on the research in these areas, but they seem like they just simply review a select few studies instead of being systematic reviews in any sense of the term; so I don't know if these would be of value to cite. And thanks for the mention of different editors who might be interested in helping on this page! James Cantor and I do research together (lucky me!) and the article of his I cited was a bit of self-citation (I'm second author on the in-press JSM paper), so I hope it's okay to include work that I'm an author on. If you have any other suggestions on how better to incorporate the information I have included thus far, feel free to share your thoughts and I will make edits and changes as necessary (seems like you're a pro editor, so I bow to knowledge and experience!). Ian V. McPhail (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Hi, Ian. It's permitted to include one's own work, but other editors will trust it/you/us better if you declare your interest (such as on the talk page) and invite others to check it, or post the suggested text and cite it on the talk page, and ask others to review it and post it themselves. Take a read through WP:COI (especially WP:SELFCITE). — James Cantor (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about self-citation, James. I tried to simply state the findings from our study, instead of giving it undue weight or description compared to the other articles I've included. For other editors, here is the full citation info for the article I mentioned:

Cantor, James; McPhail, Ian (2015). "Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for hebephilia". Journal of Sexual Medicine. In press.

And here is the link to the Journal of Sexual Medicine website: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1743-6109. Last, I will provide a link to the article once it is posted on the JSM website so that other editors can track it down easier. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! You can also put on your talk page the offer to email a reprint to folks who ask. (The copyright prevents us from distributing it widely, but we can send individual copies to individual requesters.) Also, remember to sign your talkpage comments with four tilde's (~)! — James Cantor (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Other editors that would like to receive a copy of the Cantor & McPhail article can send me a message with their emails and I will send them a copy. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

More info on different types of stimuli required?

I am wondering if this Wiki page would be improved if a section/subsection or two were added that provide mare detail about the different types of stimulus sets that are used during a penile plethysmograph test to assess different sexual interests (e.g., pedophilic, gynophilic, androphylic, transvestic fetishism). I have this information readily available to me and would be willing/able to add this information into this page. However, I'd like some input from other editors, like James Cantor, prior to doing so. Thanks. 71.17.29.227 Ian V. McPhail (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right on the mark. Any stimuli can be used (in theory), but the only valid phallometric tests have data to to demonstrate that their results reliably distinguished people with versus without interest in those stimuli.— James Cantor (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penile plethysmograph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013110843/http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf to http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penile plethysmograph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002000446/http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc51/2000scc51.pdf to http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc51/2000scc51.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)