Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 267–291 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

NCVS NVAWS victimization violence against women series victimizations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bachman, R. 2000A 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 Wom6839867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachman, R., Saltzman, L. E. 1995Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned surveyBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Biderman, A. D. 1975Notes on the Significance of Measurements of Events and of Conditions by Criminal Victimization SurveysBureau of Social Science ResearchWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, PAGoogle Scholar
  6. Biderman, A. D., Lynch, J. P. 1991Understanding Crime Incidence Statistics: Why the UCR Diverges from the NCSSpringer VerlagNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bureau of Justice Statistics2000Criminal Victimization in The United States; 1995Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DC, NCJ-171129Google Scholar
  9. Bureau of Justice Statistics1994Technical Background on the Redesigned National Crime Victimization SurveyBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Bureau of Justice Statistics1982Criminal Victimization in the United States; 1979–80 Changes, 1973–80 TrendsBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodge, R. W. 1987Series Crimes: Report of a Field TestBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Hart, T. C., Rennison, C. M. 2003Reporting Crime to Police, 1992–2000Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Klaus, P., Rennison, C. M. 2002Age Patterns of Violent Victimization, 1976–2000Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., Phillips,  D. M. 2002The Mismeasure of CrimeSageThousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Brien, R. M. 1985Crime and Victimization DataSageBeverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, 2003Google Scholar
  19. Rand, M., Saltzman, L. E. 2003The nature and extent of recurring intimate partner violence in the United StatesJ. Comp. Fam. StudXXXIV137149Google Scholar
  20. Rennison, C. M. 2002aCriminal Victimization 2001: Changes 2000–2001 with Trends 1993–2001Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Rennison, C. M. 2002bHispanic Victims of Violent Crime, 1993–2000/Víctimas Hispanas de Crímenes Violentos, 1993–2000Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Rennison, C. M. 2001aCriminal Victimization 2000: Changes 1999–2000 with Trends 1993–2000Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Rennison, C. M. 2001bViolent Victimization and Race, 1993–1998Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Rennison, C. M. 2000Criminal Victimization 1999: Changes 1998–1999 with Trends 1993–1999Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Rennison, C. M. 1999Criminal Victimization 1998: Changes 1997–1998 with Trends 1993–1998Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Rennison, C. M., Rand, M. 2003Non-Lethal intimate partner violence against women: A comparison of three age cohortsViolence Against Wom914171428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rennison, C. M. 2003bCriminal Victimization 2002Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Skogan, W. G. 1981Issues in the Measurement of VictimizationBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Straus, M. A. 1979Measuring Family Conflict and Violence. The Conflict Tactics ScaleJ. Marriage Fam417588Google Scholar
  30. Straus, M. A. 1992

    Measuring interfamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales

    Straus, M. A.Gelles, R. J. eds. Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 FamiliesTransaction PublishersNew Brunswick, NJ
    Google Scholar
  31. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J. 1992Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 FamiliesTransaction PublishersNew Brunswick, NJ.(2nd printing)Google Scholar
  32. 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, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  33. Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N. 1998Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women SurveyNational Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and PreventionWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N. 2000aExtent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner ViolenceNational Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and PreventionWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N. 2000bFull Report of the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women SurveyNational Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and PreventionWashington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bureau of Justice StatisticsU.S. Department of JusticeWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of Missouri – St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations