↓ Skip to main content

The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia
Published in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, September 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9536-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ray Blanchard

Abstract

This paper contains the author's report on pedophilia, submitted on June 2, 2008, to the work group charged with revising the diagnoses concerning sexual and gender identity disorders for the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The author reviews the previously published criticisms and empirical research concerning the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia and presents criticism and relevant research of his own. The review shows that the DSM diagnostic criteria for pedophilia have repeatedly been criticized as unsatisfactory on logical or conceptual grounds, and that published empirical studies on the reliability and validity of these criteria have produced ambiguous results. It therefore seems that the current (i.e., DSM-IV-TR) diagnostic criteria need to be examined with an openness to major changes in the DSM-V.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 4%
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 149 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 24%
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Researcher 17 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 6%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 77 48%
Social Sciences 18 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 9%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 26 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,625,003
of 25,634,695 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#1,185
of 3,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,005
of 99,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#14
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,634,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 99,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.