Apparent differences between violence against women estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) continue to generate confusion. How is it that two surveys purporting to measure the nature and extent of violence against women present such seemingly dissimilar estimates? The answer is found in the important, yet often over-looked details of each survey. Our objective is to clarify some of the reasons for apparent disparities between NCVS and NVAWS estimates by first identifying why published estimates are not comparable. Next, we adjust NCVS estimates to make them comparable to NVAWS estimates by restricting NCVS estimates to 1995 and including only persons age 18 or older, and by applying the NVAWS series victimization counting protocol to NCVS estimates. Contrary to findings in the literature, the NVAWS did not produce statistically greater estimates of violence against women compared to the NCVS. Further, incident counting protocols used in the NVAWS and the recalibrated NCVS increased the error, and decreased the reliability of the estimates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R. Bachman (2000) ArticleTitleA comparison of annual incidence rates and contextual characteristics of intimate partner violence against women from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) Violence Against Wom 6 839–867 Occurrence Handle10.1177/10778010022182173
R. Bachman L. E. Saltzman (1995) Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned survey Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
Bickart, B., and Felcher, E. M. (1996). Examining and enhancing the use of verbal protocols in survey research. In Schwarz, N., and Sudman, S. (eds.), Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Congnitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransisco.
A. D. Biderman (1975) Notes on the Significance of Measurements of Events and of Conditions by Criminal Victimization Surveys Bureau of Social Science Research Washington, DC
Biderman, A. D., and Cantor, D. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of bounding, response conditioning, and mobility as sources of panel bias in the national crime survey. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Philadelphia, PA
A. D. Biderman J. P. Lynch (1991) Understanding Crime Incidence Statistics: Why the UCR Diverges from the NCS Springer Verlag New York
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003). Criminal Victimization in the United States 2002 Statistical tables. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus02mt.pdf. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC
InstitutionalAuthorNameBureau of Justice Statistics (2000) Criminal Victimization in The United States; 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC, NCJ-171129
InstitutionalAuthorNameBureau of Justice Statistics (1994) Technical Background on the Redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
InstitutionalAuthorNameBureau of Justice Statistics (1982) Criminal Victimization in the United States; 1979–80 Changes, 1973–80 Trends Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
Cantor, D., and Lynch, J. P. (2000). Self report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization. In National Institute of Justice (ed.), Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Vol. 4. National Institute of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC
R. W. Dodge (1987) Series Crimes: Report of a Field Test Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
Fischer, B. S., and Cullen, F. T. (2000). Measuring the sexual victimization of women: Evolution, current controversies and future research. In National Institute of Justice (ed.), Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Vol. 4. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC
T. C. Hart C. M. Rennison (2003) Reporting Crime to Police, 1992–2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
P. Klaus C. M. Rennison (2002) Age Patterns of Violent Victimization, 1976–2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
C. J. Mosher T. D. Miethe D. M. Phillips (2002) The Mismeasure of Crime Sage Thousand Oaks
R. M. O’Brien (1985) Crime and Victimization Data Sage Beverly Hills
Planty, M. (2003). An examination of adolescent telescoping: Evidence from the national crime victimization survey. Unpublished paper presented at the 58th Annual AAPOR Conference in Nashville TN, May 15–18, 2003
M. Rand L. E. Saltzman (2003) ArticleTitleThe nature and extent of recurring intimate partner violence in the United States J. Comp. Fam. Stud XXXIV 137–149
C. M. Rennison (2002a) Criminal Victimization 2001: Changes 2000–2001 with Trends 1993–2001 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
C. M. Rennison (2002b) Hispanic Victims of Violent Crime, 1993–2000/Víctimas Hispanas de Crímenes Violentos, 1993–2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
C. M. Rennison (2001a) Criminal Victimization 2000: Changes 1999–2000 with Trends 1993–2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
C. M. Rennison (2001b) Violent Victimization and Race, 1993–1998 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
C. M. Rennison (2000) Criminal Victimization 1999: Changes 1998–1999 with Trends 1993–1999 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
C. M. Rennison (1999) Criminal Victimization 1998: Changes 1997–1998 with Trends 1993–1998 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
C. M. Rennison M. Rand (2003) ArticleTitleNon-Lethal intimate partner violence against women: A comparison of three age cohorts Violence Against Wom 9 1417–1428 Occurrence Handle10.1177/1077801203259232
C. M. Rennison (2003b) Criminal Victimization 2002 Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
W. G. Skogan (1981) Issues in the Measurement of Victimization Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC
M. A. Straus (1979) ArticleTitleMeasuring Family Conflict and Violence. The Conflict Tactics Scale J. Marriage Fam 41 75–88
M. A. Straus (1992) Measuring interfamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales M. A. Straus R. J. Gelles (Eds) Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families Transaction Publishers New Brunswick, NJ
M. A. Straus R. J. Gelles (1992) Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families Transaction Publishers New Brunswick, NJ.
Taylor, B., and Rand M. (1995). The national crime victimization survey resdesign: New understandings of victimization on dynamics and measurement. Unpublished paper presented at the 1995 ASA Annual Meeting, August 13–17, 1995 in Orlando, Florida
P. Tjaden N. Thoennes (1998) Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Washington, DC
P. Tjaden N. Thoennes (2000a) Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Washington, DC
P. Tjaden N. Thoennes (2000b) Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Washington, DC
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Michael R. Rand - The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rand, M.R., Rennison, C.M. Bigger is not Necessarily Better: An Analysis of Violence Against Women Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against Women Survey. J Quant Criminol 21, 267–291 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-005-4272-7
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-005-4272-7