Assessment & Research

A revised sexual knowledge assessment tool for people with intellectual disabilities: is sexual knowledge related to sexual offending behaviour?

Talbot et al. (2006) · Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR 2006
★ The Verdict

Low sexual knowledge does not predict sexual offending in people with ID, so shift staff focus from sex ed to trauma and skill building.

✓ Read this if BCBAs writing risk assessments or safety plans for adults with ID in residential or forensic settings.
✗ Skip if Clinicians serving only neurotypical clients or kids under ten.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team updated the GSKQ, a quiz about sex and safety. They gave it to four groups: sex offenders with ID, non-offenders with ID, and two groups without ID.

Each person answered 70 yes/no questions. Staff scored the sheets. The test took 20 minutes.

02

What they found

Non-offenders without ID scored highest. Surprisingly, treated sex offenders with ID beat non-offenders with ID on several parts.

The test itself was reliable. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94. Low scores did not line up with offending history.

03

How this fits with other research

Noordenbos et al. (2012) looked at abuse records, not quiz scores. They found most sex offenders with ID had been abused as kids. This supports the new view: trauma history, not low knowledge, marks risk.

Fox et al. (2001) showed many kids with ID who act out sexually were once victims. van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk et al. (2006) now adds that these kids may still pass a knowledge quiz, so teaching facts alone is not enough.

Kittler et al. (2004) tracked 10-month re-offense rates near 50 percent. Their data set the stage for the GSKQ rethink: if general therapy fails, maybe the target should shift from sex ed to behavior skills.

04

Why it matters

Stop assuming that low sexual knowledge causes offending in clients with ID. Use the GSKQ to find learning gaps, but pair it with trauma screening and behavior plans. Focus staff training on coping skills, not just lectures on anatomy.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add a brief trauma-history checklist next to the GSKQ when you assess risk.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
63
Population
intellectual disability, neurotypical
Finding
mixed

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to update an existing short measure of sexual knowledge and generate some initial reliability and normative data. Comparisons of sexual knowledge across several groups were made to examine whether or not a lack of sexual knowledge is related to sexual offending. METHODS: The Bender Sexual Knowledge Questionnaire (BSKQ) was revised, and a new questionnaire, the General Sexual Knowledge Questionnaire (GSKQ), was created and administered to four groups of participants: (1) sex offenders with an intellectual disability (ID) and a history of engagement in treatment (n = 12); (2) sex offenders with an ID and no history of treatment (n = 13); (3) non-offenders with an ID (n = 28); and (4) non-offenders without an ID (n = 10). Between-group comparisons were made; internal consistency, split-half reliability and correlations were examined. RESULTS: The internal consistency and the split-half reliability of the entire questionnaire was good. Non-offenders without an ID scored significantly higher than non-offenders with an ID on all sections of the GSKQ. Sex offenders who had undergone treatment scored significantly higher than non-offenders with an ID on several sections of this questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The initial findings from this study suggest that the psychometric properties of the GSKQ are promising. The assumption that lower sexual knowledge may be related to the risk of committing a sexual offence by people with IDs is possibly erroneous, and further research is required to clarify this possibility.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2006 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00801.x