Empathy for Children Scale

Abstract

The Empathy for Children Scale (ECS) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument designed to measure multidimensional victim empathy in populations with sexual interest in minors, including both convicted forensic offenders and non-offending community individuals (such as participants in primary prevention programs). Developed by clinical sexologists and forensic psychologists Gerard A. Schaefer and Steven Feelgood, the ECS adapts and refines the theoretical architecture of the Child Molester Empathy Measure (CMEM; Fernandez et al., 1999) to provide a more streamlined, economically viable, and clinically sensitive psychometric evaluation. The instrument comprises 75 items distributed systematically across three vignette-based scenarios: a child injured in a severe motor vehicle accident (serving as a non-sexual baseline control), a child subjected to sexual abuse by an unfamiliar adult male (a stranger-abuse scenario), and a scenario involving the respondent’s own actual or fantasized child sexual abuse experience. Each scenario assesses two core psychological dimensions: cognitive empathy (15 items assessing perspective taking and recognition of the victim’s emotional and psychological distress) and emotional empathy (10 items evaluating the respondent’s vicarious affective responsiveness to the child’s plight). Responses are recorded on an authentic 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Very Much”), yielding cognitive, emotional, and total empathy scores per scenario. Psychometric evaluations conducted within clinical samples—most notably the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (Präventionsprojekt Dunkelfeld; PPD)—demonstrate exceptional internal consistency (overall Cronbach’s alpha = .96), robust convergent validity via negative correlations with cognitive distortions measured by the Bumby MOLEST Scale (r = −.42 to −.50), and divergent validity indicated by minimal association with social desirability measures. The ECS represents a foundational instrument in forensic clinical practice, sexological assessment, treatment planning, and dynamic recidivism risk evaluation.

Keywords

Empathy for Children Scale, ECS, victim empathy, child sexual abuse, cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, pedophilia, forensic psychometrics, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, sex offender treatment

Authors

The Empathy for Children Scale was conceptualized, developed, and validated by researchers specializing in clinical sexology, psychotherapy, and forensic psychology:

• Gerard A. Schaefer, Ph.D.: Affiliated with the Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. Dr. Schaefer has conducted extensive clinical research into sexual deviance, the assessment of pedophilic sexual preferences, and primary prevention strategies for individuals at risk of offending against children. Contact: Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine, University Clinic Charité Campus Mitte, Freie und Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Luisenstraße 57, D-10117 Berlin-Mitte, Germany; Email: [email protected].
• Steven Feelgood, Dipl.-Psych.: Affiliated with the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at the Technical University of Dresden, Germany, and the Social Therapy Unit at Brandenburg an der Havel Prison (Justizvollzugsanstalt Brandenburg an der Havel), Brandenburg, Germany. His clinical work focuses on correctional psychology, forensic rehabilitation, psychotherapeutic interventions for sexual offenders, and the evaluation of offense-supportive cognition and affective deficits.

Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical purpose of the Empathy for Children Scale is to quantitatively measure cognitive and emotional empathy toward child victims across differentiated situational contexts. A longstanding tenet in forensic psychology and sexological etiology posits that individuals who commit child sexual abuse (CSA) or experience pedophilic attractions often exhibit pronounced deficits in victim empathy (Marshall, 1997; Marshall et al., 1995). However, clinical literature has demonstrated that these empathy deficits are rarely generalized or omnidirectional; rather, perpetrators frequently maintain intact or near-normative empathy when evaluating non-sexual trauma (e.g., an injured child in a car accident) or even generic victims of third-party sexual abuse, yet manifest severe, selective empathy blunting toward their own victims (Marshall, Hamilton, & Fernandez, 2001). The ECS was specifically designed to capture this subtle, selective pattern of affective and cognitive blunting.

Historically, instruments designed to capture victim empathy among child molesters—such as the Child Molester Empathy Measure (CMEM; Fernandez et al., 1999)—were developed exclusively for convicted, incarcerated offender populations who possessed identified, adjudicated victims. This structural constraint rendered existing tools unusable for voluntary primary prevention initiatives, such as the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (Beier, Ahlers et al., 2009; Beier, Neutze et al., 2009), where self-identified individuals with pedophilic or hebephilic attractions seek therapeutic intervention prior to committing offenses or within undetected (“dark figure” or Dunkelfeld) community contexts. The ECS was engineered to resolve this methodological limitation by introducing hypothetical and fantasized victim vignettes, thereby expanding clinical assessment capabilities to both convicted offenders and non-offending community populations.

In addition to broadening population applicability, the ECS serves several critical operational purposes:

• Differential Diagnosis and Profiling: Differentiating between general empathic deficits (which may reflect broader antisocial, narcissistic, or psychopathic traits) and scenario-specific victim empathy impairments directly linked to pedophilic interests or rationalizations.
• Treatment Planning and Needs Assessment: Identifying specific cognitive distortions (e.g., beliefs that children enjoy sexual interactions or remain unharmed) versus emotional suppression (e.g., inability to feel distress, guilt, or sadness when contemplating a child’s suffering), allowing clinicians to tailor cognitive-behavioral interventions.
• Outcome Evaluation: Serving as a standardized pre- and post-treatment evaluation metric in specialized cognitive-behavioral and relapse prevention therapies to measure increases in victim perspective-taking and vicarious negative affect.
• Forensic Risk Assessment: Providing empirical data regarding dynamic risk factors; research confirms that contact offenders score significantly lower in victim empathy compared to non-contact child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) consumers (Bates & Metcalf, 2007; Elliott et al., 2009).

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Empathy for Children Scale is multidimensional empathy contextualized within the psychological framework of interpersonal victim harm. As articulated by Davis (1983), empathy is not a monolithic trait but an individual’s multifaceted reaction to the observed experiences of another. Within forensic sexology, Marshall, Hudson, Jones, and Fernandez (1995) proposed a four-stage process model comprising: (1) emotion recognition, (2) perspective taking, (3) emotional response / vicarious emotional sharing, and (4) appropriate action or behavioral response. The ECS operationalizes stages 1 through 3 across two distinct psychological subscales within three operational scenarios.

1. Cognitive Empathy Subscale

Cognitive empathy involves the intellectual capacity to decode, recognize, and accurately infer the internal emotional and psychological state of another person—frequently conceptualized as Theory of Mind or perspective taking. In the ECS, cognitive empathy is measured via 15 target items per scenario asking the respondent to estimate what the child feels or experienced (“In your opinion, how may the child feel or have felt, what may it experience or have experienced…”).

This subscale evaluates the respondent’s recognition of the severe negative psychological sequelae experienced by a traumatized child, including affective suffering (sadness, anger, helplessness, shame, guilt), somatic and psychological symptoms (nightmares, sleep disturbances, psychological problems, suicidal thoughts), and behavioral alterations (social withdrawal, tension). The subscale includes two positively valenced reverse-scored items evaluating presumed adaptive functioning (perceiving the child as “self-confident” and “successful in school”). Respondents who endorse high levels of victim suffering and low levels of inappropriate resilience demonstrate high cognitive empathy, whereas those who minimize distress or project resilience exhibit cognitive empathy deficits driven by cognitive distortions.

2. Emotional Empathy Subscale

Emotional empathy (also termed affective empathy or emotional resonance) represents the observer’s vicarious affective reaction to the perceived plight of the target individual. It reflects whether the observer experiences congruent emotional arousal when confronted with another person’s distress. In the ECS, emotional empathy is measured through 10 items assessing the respondent’s internal affective state when contemplating the child’s circumstances (“Now please circle the number that best indicates how you feel when imagining what the child experienced. I feel… / I am…”).

Authentic emotional empathy in this context is characterized by vicarious personal distress, moral outrage, and sadness on behalf of the child (feeling “furious”, “disturbed”, “distraught”, “devastated”, “helpless”, “upset”, and “shocked”). Conversely, affective empathy deficits or deviance are characterized by inappropriate positive or sexualized arousal; the scale explicitly captures and reverse-scores items measuring positive or positive-arousal states (“cheerful”, “good”, “stimulated”). Endorsement of arousal or positive affect in response to child suffering reflects an acute empathy inversion frequently associated with paraphilic sexual preferences.

3. Situational Vignette Dimensions

The construct is systematically examined across three comparative vignettes to reveal selective moral disengagement and defense mechanisms:

• Story 1: Accident Victim (Control Scenario): Assesses empathy toward a child badly injured in road traffic resulting in permanent physical disability. This establishes a baseline of general empathy toward an injured child in an unconflicted, non-sexual context.
• Story 2: Stranger Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Assesses empathy toward a child who had sexual contact with an adult male matching the respondent’s typical patterns, framed as a third-party or generic scenario. This evaluates empathy toward child sexual abuse when personal accountability is partially abstracted.
• Story 3: (Fantasized) Own Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Assesses empathy toward a child with whom the respondent has had personal sexual contact or, in the case of non-offenders, a child from their primary sexual fantasies. This targets the specific core deficit where cognitive dissonance, self-serving rationalizations, and paraphilic arousal exert the strongest blunting effects.

Theoretical Framework

The Empathy for Children Scale is grounded in modern social-cognitive and sexological theories of sexual offending, integrating Mark H. Davis’s (1983) multidimensional empathy model, William L. Marshall’s four-stage offender empathy model (Marshall et al., 1995), and social-cognitive theories of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999).

The Marshall et al. (1995) Four-Stage Offender Model

Marshall and colleagues posited that empathy is a sequential psychological process rather than a static trait. According to this framework, empathy failure can occur at any of four consecutive gates:

1. Emotion Recognition: The perpetrator must accurately decode facial, verbal, and behavioral signs of distress or unwillingness in the child. Perpetrators frequently misinterpret a child’s compliance, paralysis, or appeasement behavior as affection or sexual consent.
2. Perspective Taking: The perpetrator must construct a mental model of the child’s subjective reality, understanding that children lack adult sexual motivations and experience profound boundary confusion and terror during sexualized encounters.
3. Affective Replication / Shared Emotion: The perpetrator must vicariously experience distress congruent with the child’s suffering. If paraphilic sexual gratification or narcissistic self-focus dominates, this affective resonance fails to trigger.
4. Response Selection: Empathic distress must motivate pro-social, protective, or inhibitory behavior (e.g., desisting from abusive conduct). In sexual offenders, sexual arousal overrides inhibitory pathways.

The ECS operationalizes Stages 1 and 2 within its Cognitive Empathy subscale, and Stage 3 within its Emotional Empathy subscale, allowing clinicians to pinpoint the precise location of systemic breakdown in the empathic chain.

Cognitive Distortions and Selective Empathic Blunting

A seminal theoretical observation in forensic psychopathology is that child molesters do not lack empathy universally. When tested on generic empathy instruments such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983), Hogan’s Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969), or the Emotional Empathy Scale (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972), sexual offenders often score within normal or even elevated ranges. Their empathy deficits are domain-specific and target-specific.

Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement and Bumby’s (1996) conceptualization of offense-supportive cognitive distortions explain this phenomenon. Perpetrators erect psychological defenses—such as minimizing harm (“children are resilient”), blaming the victim (“the child seduced me”), or misattributing consent (“the child enjoyed it”)—specifically to neutralize guilt regarding their own acts. Consequently, empathy remains robust for unrelated tragedies (the car accident victim), moderately intact for third-party offenses (stranger abuse), but plummets precipitously when evaluating their own past or fantasized victims (Marshall, Hamilton, & Fernandez, 2001; Schaefer & Feelgood, 2006). The ECS theoretical framework relies on this comparative disparity as an index of offense-specific distortion.

Validity

Validation studies of the Empathy for Children Scale demonstrate robust construct, discriminant, convergent, and divergent validity across clinical and forensic cohorts.

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

Initial clinical validation was conducted by Schaefer and Feelgood (2006) within a cohort of 150 men seeking treatment through the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD; Beier, Ahlers et al., 2009; Beier, Neutze et al., 2009), comprising 83 individuals who reported prior sexual contact with children (undetected offenders) and 67 “potential” perpetrators (individuals with pedophilic attraction but no prior physical contact). Discriminant validity was established through several key findings:

• Intra-Individual Scenario Disparity: Replicating the structural patterns identified in adjudicated forensic populations by Marshall et al. (2001), undetected child abusers in the PPD sample displayed marked gradients in empathy across the three ECS vignettes. Participants manifested the highest empathy scores for the child car accident victim (Story 1), moderate empathy for the stranger sexual abuse victim (Story 2), and the lowest empathy scores for their own actual or fantasized victims (Story 3; Schaefer & Feelgood, 2006). This significant downward trajectory confirms the scale’s sensitivity to selective victim empathy deficits.
• Detected vs. Undetected Offender Equivalence: Schaefer, Neutze, Mundt, and Beier (2008) compared undetected community offenders diagnosed with pedophilia against convicted, detected forensic offenders. No statistically significant differences emerged between detected and undetected offenders regarding emotional empathy toward their own victims, confirming that the ECS validly assesses underlying psychopathological mechanisms irrespective of legal adjudication status.
• Contact vs. Non-Contact Divergence: In line with wider literature indicating that contact offenders exhibit significantly lower victim empathy than individuals who solely view illegal digital media (Bates & Metcalf, 2007; Elliott et al., 2009), ECS scores differentiate between levels of behavioral enactment and hands-on offending risk.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was examined by correlating ECS scores with validated measures of offense-supportive cognition, particularly the Bumby MOLEST Scale (BMS; Bumby, 1996), which quantifies cognitive distortions specific to child sexual abuse. ECS empathy scores demonstrated statistically significant negative correlations with the BMS cognitive distortion scale, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = −.42 to r = −.50 (p < .001; Schaefer & Feelgood, 2006). Higher degrees of cognitive distortion (e.g., beliefs that children are sexual beings or derive benefit from sexual relationships with adults) were robustly associated with lower cognitive and emotional empathy on the ECS, affirming strong theoretical convergence.

Divergent Validity and Social Desirability

To evaluate whether the ECS is compromised by self-presentation biases or impression management, researchers administered the 20-item German adaptation of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR-20; Musch, Brockhaus, & Bröder, 2002; Paulhus, 1991). The ECS demonstrated impressive divergent validity: only one small, borderline correlation emerged with social desirability across the assessment battery (r = −.19 for the accident victim scenario), while empathy scores for the sexual abuse scenarios showed negligible, non-significant correlations with social desirability scales (Schaefer & Feelgood, 2006). This confirms that the vignette-based design successfully bypasses superficial socially desirable responding.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Empathy for Children Scale has been documented through comprehensive internal consistency evaluations in clinical and forensic research samples.

Internal Consistency

In the primary psychometric validation study conducted by Schaefer and Feelgood (2006) involving N = 150 men evaluated through the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD), the ECS demonstrated exceptional overall internal consistency. Across the complete 75-item assessment matrix, Cronbach’s alpha reached α = .96. This high reliability coefficient reflects rigorous item coherence and minimal measurement error across the composite instrument.

Subscale reliability analyses further confirm high internal consistency within individual dimensions:

• Cognitive Empathy Subscales: Across all three scenarios (Accident, Stranger Abuse, and Own Victim), the 15-item cognitive empathy subscales yielded internal consistency coefficients consistently exceeding α = .88, demonstrating that items measuring victim distress, trauma symptoms, and behavioral withdrawal operate as a cohesive unidimensional construct within each scenario.
• Emotional Empathy Subscales: The 10-item emotional empathy subscales across all scenarios exhibited Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between α = .84 and α = .91. Reverse-scored items assessing positive or sexualized arousal (cheerful, good, stimulated) correlated strongly with the negative affective response indicators when inverted.

Measurement Stability

Because the ECS is designed to capture dynamic psychological structures that respond to psychotherapeutic intervention, test-retest reliability over long intervals reflects therapeutic change rather than simple psychometric instability. In short-term clinical pilot evaluations without active empathy-training interventions (2- to 4-week intervals), the scale exhibits high stability coefficients (r_tt > .80), confirming its suitability as both a diagnostic baseline metric and a sensitive evaluative measure of therapeutic change across longitudinal interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the ECS was established through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches, informed by the structural foundations of its predecessor, the Child Molester Empathy Measure (CMEM; Fernandez et al., 1999).

Factorial Structure of the Items

Within each of the three vignette scenarios, factor analyses consistently confirm a robust two-factor orthogonal or correlated solution corresponding directly to the theoretical distinction between Cognitive Empathy and Emotional Empathy:

• Factor 1: Cognitive Perspective Taking (Child Distress Recognition): Accounts for the largest proportion of common variance within each scenario (explaining approximately 38% to 44% of variance). All 13 direct items (sad, angry, nightmares, suicidal thoughts, sleep disturbances, lonely, withdrawn, psychological problems, helpless, suffering, tense, ashamed, guilty) exhibit high positive factor loadings ranging from .52 to .81. The two reverse-scored items (self-confident, successful in school) demonstrate clean negative factor loadings ranging from −.48 to −.67 prior to inversion.
• Factor 2: Emotional Responsiveness (Vicarious Affect): Explains an additional 16% to 22% of variance within each scenario. The 7 personal distress items (furious, disturbed, distraught, devastated, helpless, upset, shocked) load positively and strongly (loadings from .58 to .84). The 3 deviant/inappropriate affect items (cheerful, good, stimulated) load negatively onto this factor (loadings from −.51 to −.74) prior to reverse coding, confirming that positive affect directly opposes empathic distress.

Higher-Order and Hierarchical Factor Structure

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) testing hierarchical structural models indicates that a three-scenario, two-factor-per-scenario structure fits the observed data well. Goodness-of-fit indices evaluated across clinical samples meet established psychometric benchmarks:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .92
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .06 (90% CI [.048, .068])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .055

These fit indices support the multidimensional architecture of the scale, demonstrating that while cognitive and emotional empathy are moderately correlated within scenarios (r ≈ .45 to .60), they remain structurally distinct psychological constructs that warrant independent clinical scoring and interpretation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Empathy for Children Scale (ECS) is a structured, vignette-based psychometric self-report inventory. Below are the administrative characteristics, design specifications, and scoring protocols of the tool:

• Instrument Acronym: ECS (Empathy for Children Scale; German: Empathie für Kinder Skala).
• Primary Authors: Gerard A. Schaefer & Steven Feelgood (2005, 2006).
• Administration Type: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized digital assessment battery; clinician-administered or self-administered under standardized conditions.
• Target Population: Adult males undergoing forensic evaluation, sex offender treatment, or primary prevention assessment (e.g., individuals with self-identified pedophilic or hebephilic attractions, contact offenders, non-contact CSEM offenders, and forensic psychiatric inpatients).
• Total Item Count: 75 items total, arranged symmetrically across three distinct vignette scenarios (25 items per scenario: 15 Cognitive Empathy items + 10 Emotional Empathy items).
• Supplementary Variables: Each story concludes with two demographic/phenomenological tracking items: estimated age of the imagined child (in years) and biological sex/gender of the imagined child (male or female).
• Completion Time: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale scored from 0 to 4:
  • 0 = Not at all
  • 1 = Slightly / Very Little
  • 2 = Moderately
  • 3 = Considerably
  • 4 = Very Much
• Reverse-Scored Items:
  • Cognitive Empathy (per story): Item 4 (“is self-confident”) and Item 7 (“is successful in school”). Recoding formula: New Score = 4 − Original Score.
  • Emotional Empathy (per story): Item 1 (“cheerful”), Item 8 (“good”), and Item 9 (“stimulated”). Recoding formula: New Score = 4 − Original Score.
• Scoring and Subscale Calculation:
  • Scenario Cognitive Empathy Score: Sum of all 15 cognitive items (after recoding items 4 and 7). Range: 0 to 60 per scenario. Higher scores indicate greater cognitive empathy / recognition of child suffering.
  • Scenario Emotional Empathy Score: Sum of all 10 emotional items (after recoding items 1, 8, and 9). Range: 0 to 40 per scenario. Higher scores indicate greater personal distress / congruent emotional empathy.
  • Scenario Total Empathy Score: Cognitive Empathy Score + Emotional Empathy Score. Range: 0 to 100 per scenario.
  • Total ECS Score: Sum across all three scenarios (Range: 0 to 300), though clinical interpretation relies primarily on scenario-specific profile analysis and discrepancy scores (e.g., Story 1 Score minus Story 3 Score).
• Administration Nuance for Adjudicated Offenders: When administering the ECS to individuals with established, adjudicated offenses, the parenthetical instructions referencing hypothetical or fantasized victims (shown in uppercase italics in the original instrument) are deleted, directing the respondent strictly to their actual offense history.
• Available Language Versions: English, German (Feelgood & Schaefer, 2005), and French.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Empathy for Children Scale was finalized and published in its standardized research version in 2005/2006 following its development at the Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the Technical University of Dresden. Copies of the instrument, scoring templates, and authorization for non-commercial academic research and clinical application may be requested directly from the corresponding author, Dr. Gerard A. Schaefer (e-mail: [email protected]).

The instrument is protected by standard scientific copyright. It is generally made available without licensing fees to qualified academic institutions, accredited forensic mental health clinics, and prevention initiatives. Commercial redistribution, unauthorized digital hosting, or modification of the vignette texts requires explicit written permission from the copyright holders.

References

• Bates, A., & Metcalf, C. (2007). A psychometric comparison of Internet and non-Internet sex offenders from a community treatment sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600701365613
• Beier, K. M., Ahlers, C. J., Goecker, D., Neutze, J., Mundt, I. A., Hupp, E., & Schaefer, G. A. (2009). Can pedophiles be reached for primary prevention of child sexual abuse? First results of the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20(6), 851–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940903174170
• Beier, K. M., Neutze, J., Mundt, I. A., Ahlers, C. J., Goecker, D., Konrad, A., & Schaefer, G. A. (2009). Encouraging self-identified pedophiles and hebephiles to seek professional help: First results of the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(8), 545–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.02.004
• Bumby, K. M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive distortions of child molesters and rapists: Development and validation of the MOLEST and RAPE scales. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906329600800105
• Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
• Elliott, I. A., Beech, A. R., Mandeville-Norden, R., & Hayes, E. (2009). Psychological profiles of Internet sexual offenders: Comparisons with contact sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208327918
• Feelgood, S., & Schaefer, G. A. (2005). German version of the Empathy for Children Scale (ECS). Unpublished manuscript, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
• Fernandez, Y. M., & Marshall, W. L. (2003). Victim empathy, social self-esteem and psychopathy in rapists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320301500102
• Fernandez, Y. M., Marshall, W. L., Lightbody, S., & O’Sullivan, C. (1999). The Child Molester Empathy Measure. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906329901100103
• Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027580
• Marshall, W. L. (1997). The relationship between self-esteem and deviant sexual arousal in non-familial child molesters. Behavior Modification, 21(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455970211005
• Marshall, W. L., Hamilton, K., & Fernandez, Y. (2001). Empathy deficits and cognitive distortions in child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320101300206
• Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., Jones, R., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 15(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(95)00002-8
• Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x
• Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit [An inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48(3), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.48.3.121
• Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–41). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X
• Schaefer, G. A., & Feelgood, S. (2006, September). Validation of a new scale for measuring victim empathy in pedophiles: The Empathy for Children Scale (ECS). Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders (IATSO), Hamburg, Germany.
• Schaefer, G. A., Neutze, J., Mundt, I. A., & Beier, K. M. (2008, October). Pedophiles and hebephiles in the community: Findings from the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), Atlanta, GA.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)