Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 345–363 | Cite as

Revisiting Respondent “Fatigue Bias” in the National Crime Victimization Survey

  • Timothy C. Hart
  • Callie Marie Rennison
  • Chris Gibson
Article

For more than three decades the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—and its predecessor the National Crime Survey (NCS)—have been used to calculate estimates of nonfatal crime in the United States. Though the survey has contributed much to our understanding of criminal victimization, some aspects of the survey’s methodology continue to be analyzed (e.g., repeat victimizations, proxy interviews, and bounding). Surprisingly, one important aspect of NCVS methodology has escaped this scrutiny: respondent fatigue. A potential source of nonsampling error, fatigue bias is thought to manifest as respondents become “test wise” after repeated exposure to NCVS survey instruments. Using a special longitudinal NCVS data file, we revisit the presence and influence of respondent fatigue in the NCVS. Specifically, we test the theory that respondents exposed to longer interviews during their first interview are more likely to refuse to participate in the survey 6 months later. Contrary to expectations based on the literature, results show that prior reporting of victimization and exposure to a longer interview is not a significant predictor of a noninterview during the following time-in-sample once relevant individual characteristics are accounted for. Findings do demonstrate significant effects of survey mode and several respondent characteristics on subsequent survey non-participation.

Keywords

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) longitudinal surveys fatigue bias nonresponse nonsampling error 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addington, L. A. (2005). Disentangling the effects of bounding and mobility on reports of criminal victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 21: (this issue)Google Scholar
  2. Biderman, A. D. 1967Surveys of population samples for estimating crime incidenceAnn. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci3741633Google Scholar
  3. Biderman, A. D., and Cantor, D. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of bounding, respondent conditioning and mobility as sources of panel bias in the national crime survey. In Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  4. Biderman, A. D., Johnson, L. A., McIntyre, J., Weir, A. W. 1967Field Survey I: Report on a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia on Victimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Field Survey I.US Government Printing OfficeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Brame, R., Paternoster, R., Mazerolle, P., Piquero, A. 1998Testing for the equality of maximum-likelihood regression coefficients between two independent equationsJ. Quant. Criminol.14245261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002). National Crime Victimization Survey Longitudinal File, 1996–1999 [Computer file]. Conducted by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the CensusGoogle Scholar
  7. Bushery, J. M. (1978). NCS Noninterview Rates by Time-in-Sample. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandumGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantor, D., Lynch, J. P. 2000

    Self-Report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization

    Duffee, D. eds. Criminal Justice 2000: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Vol. 4Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC85138
    Google Scholar
  9. Catalano, S. (2004). Criminal Victimization 2003, US Government Printing Office, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (NCJ 205455), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Chilton, R., Jarvis, J. 1999Victims and offenders in two cities statistics programs: A comparison of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)J. Quant. Criminol.15193205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., Groves, R. M., Little, R. J. A. 2002

    Survey nonresponse in design, data collection, and analysis

    Groves, R. M.Dillman, D. A.Eltinge, J. L.Little, R. J. A. eds. Survey NonresponseWileyNew York, NY
    Google Scholar
  12. Finkelhor, D., Asdigian, N., Dziuba-Leatherman, J. 1995Victimization prevention programs for children: A follow-upAm. J. Public Health8516841689PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Groves, R. M., and Couper, M. P. (1992). Correlates of nonresponse in personal visit surveys. In Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  14. Groves, R. M., and Couper, M. P. (1993). Multivariate analysis of nonresponse in personal visit surveys. In Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  15. Groves, R. M., Couper, M. P. 1998Nonresponse in Household Interview SurveysWileyNew York, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris-Kjoetin, B. A., Tucker, C. 1998Longitudinal nonresponse in the current population survey (CPS)ZUMA Nachtrichen Spezial4263272Google Scholar
  17. Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. 2000Applied Logistic Regression2WileyNew York, NYGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, T. P. (1988). The Social Environment and Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Unpublished doctoral dissertationGoogle Scholar
  19. Kindermann, C., Lynch, J., and Cantor, D. (1997). Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates, Washington, DC. Bureau of Justice Statistics: US Government Printing Office, (NCJ 1643681)Google Scholar
  20. Lehnen, R. G., Reiss, A. J. 1978aResponse effects in the national crime surveyVictimology3110122Google Scholar
  21. Lehnen, R. G., and Reiss, A. J. (1978b). Some response effects of the national crime survey. In Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  22. Lepkowski, J. M., and Couper, M. P. (2002). Nonresponse in the second wave of longitudinal household surveys. In Groves, R. M., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., and Little, R. J. A. (eds) Survey Nonresponse, Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Madans, J. H., Kleinman, J. C., Cox, C. S., Barbano, H. E., Feldman, J. J., Cohen, B., Finucane, F. F., Cornoni-Huntley, J. 1986Ten years after NHANES I: Report of initial follow up, 1982–1984Public Health Reports101465473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1976). Surveying crime. In Eidson-Penick, B. K., and Owens, M. E. B. (eds) Panel for the Evaluation of Crime Surveys. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Rennison, C. M., Rand, M. R. 2003Criminal Victimization, 2002Government Printing Office, U.S. Bureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Rand, M. R., Rennison, C. M. 2002True crime stories? Accounting for differences in our national crime indicatorsChance154751Google Scholar
  27. Skogan, W. G. (1981). Issues in the Measurement of Victimization. Government Printing Office, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, (NCJ 74682), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Sliwa, G. E. (1977). Analysis of Nonresponse Rates for Various Household Surveys. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandumGoogle Scholar
  29. STATA Statistical Software (2003). Release 8.0, StataCorp, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, B. M. (1989). New Directions for the National Crime Survey. Government Printing Office, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, (NCJ 115571), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Thornberry, T. P., and Krohn, M. D. (2003). Comparison of self-report and official data for measuring crime. In National Academy of Sciences (ed.), Measurement Problems in Criminal Justice Research, National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Tourangeau, R., and McNeeley, M. (2003). Measuring crime and crime victimization: methodological issues. In National Research Council (ed.), Measurement Problems in Criminal Justice Research. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Woltman, H. (1975). Recall Bias and Telescoping in the NCS. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandumGoogle Scholar
  34. Woltman, H., and Bushery, J. (1977a). Optimum Number of Times to Retain a Panel in Sample in NCS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandumGoogle Scholar
  35. Woltman, H., and Bushery, J. (1977b). Update of the NCS Panel Bias Study, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandumGoogle Scholar
  36. Ybarra, L., and Lohr, S. L. (2000). Effects of attrition in the national crime victimization survey. In Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy C. Hart
    • 1
  • Callie Marie Rennison
    • 2
  • Chris Gibson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CriminologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of Missouri – St. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceGeorgia Southern UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations