Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 1–31 | Cite as

Analyzing Criminal Trajectory Profiles: Bridging Multilevel and Group-based Approaches Using Growth Mixture Modeling

Original Paper


Over the last 25 years, a life-course perspective on criminal behavior has assumed increasing prominence in the literature. This theoretical development has been accompanied by changes in the statistical models used to analyze criminological data. There are two main statistical modeling techniques currently used to model longitudinal data. These are growth curve models and latent class growth models, also known as group-based trajectory models. Using the well known Cambridge data and the Philadelphia cohort study, this article compares the two “classical” models—conventional growth curve model and group-based trajectory models. In addition, two growth mixture models are introduced that bridge the gap between conventional growth models and group-based trajectory models. For the Cambridge data, the different mixture models yield quite consistent inferences regarding the nature of the underlying trajectories of convictions. For the Philadelphia cohort study, the statistical indicators give stronger guidance on relative model fit. The main goals of this article are to contribute to the discussion about different modeling techniques for analyzing data from a life-course perspective and to provide a concrete step-by-step illustration of such an analysis and model checking.


Latent class growth modeling Growth mixture modeling Zero-inflated Poisson distribution Developmental trajectory groups 


  1. Blokland A, Nagin DS, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) Life span offending trajectories of a Dutch conviction cohort. Criminology 43:919–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Celeux G, Soromenho G (1996) An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. J Class 13:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clogg CC (1988) Latent class models for measuring. In: Langeheine R, Rost J (eds) Latent trait and latent class models, Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook RD (1986) Assessment of local influence (with discussion). J.R. Stat Soc, B 48:133–169Google Scholar
  5. D’Unger AV, Land KC, McCall PL, Nagin DS (1998) How many latent classes of delinquent/criminal careers? Results from mixed Poisson regression analyses. Am J Sociol 103:1593–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Unger AV, Land KC, McCall PL (2002) Sex differences in age patterns of delinquent/criminal careers: Results from Poisson latent class analyses of the Philadelphia cohort study. J Quant Criminol 18:349–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliot D (1985) National Youth Survey 1976–1980: Wave I-V, Behavioral Research Institute, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrington DP, West DJ (1990) The Cambridge study in delinquent development: A long-term follow-up of 411 London males. In: Kerner HJ, Kaiser G (eds) Kriminalität: Persönlichkeit, Lebensgeschichte und Verhalten. Festschrift für Hans Göppinger zum 70. Springer, GeburtstagGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrington DP, West DJ (1993) Criminal, penal and life histories of chronic offenders: risk and protective factors and early identification. Crim Behav Ment Health 3:492–523Google Scholar
  10. Hall DB (2000) Zero-inflated Poisson and binomial regression with random effects: a case study. Biometrics 56:1030–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heckman J, Singer B (1984) A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models for duration data. Econometrica 52:271–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedeker D, Gibbons RD (1994) A random-effects ordinal regression model for multilevel analysis. Biometrics 50:933–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirschi T, Gottfredson M (1983) Age and the explanation of crime. Am J Sociol 89:552–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jedidi K, Jagpal HS, DeSarbo WS (1997) Finite-mixture structural equation models for response-based segmentation and unobserved heterogeneity. Mark Sci 16:39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones B, Nagin D, Roeder K (2001) A SAS procedure based on mixture models for estimating developmental trajectories. Sociol Methods Res 29:374–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lambert D (1992) Zero-inflated Poisson regression with application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics 34:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laub J, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawley DN, Maxwell AE (1971) Factor analysis as a statistical method, 2nd edn. American Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Liski EP (1991) Detecting influential measurements in a growth curve model. Biometrics 47:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loughran T, Nagin DS (2006) Finite sample effects in group-based trajectory models, Sociol Methods Res 35:250–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McLachlan G, Peel D (2000) Finite mixture models. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Moffitt T (1993) Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychol Rev 100:674–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muthén B (2001a) Latent variable mixture modeling. In: Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE (eds) New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  24. Muthén B (2001b) Second-generation structural equation modeling with a combination of categorical and continuous latent variables: new opportunities for latent class/latent growth modeling. In: Collins LM, Sayer A (eds) New methods for the analysis of change. APA, Washington, D.C., pp 291–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muthén B (2002) Beyond SEM: general latent variable modeling. Behaviormetrika 29:81–117Google Scholar
  26. Muthén B (2003) Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling: comment on Bauer and Curran. Psychol Methods 8:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muthén B (2004) Latent variable analysis: growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In: Kaplan D (ed) Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 345–368Google Scholar
  28. Muthén B, Asparouhov T (in press) Growth mixture modeling: analysis with non-Gaussian random effects. Draft available at: Forthcoming in: Fitzmaurice G, Davidian M, Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (eds) Advances in longitudinal data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press
  29. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide, 4th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Nagin DS (1999) Analyzing developmental trajectories: a semi-parametric, group-based approach. Psychol Methods 4:139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nagin DS, Farrington DP, Moffitt TE (1995) Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology 33:111–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagin DS, Land KC (1993) Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology 31:327–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nieuwbeerta P, Blokland A (2003) Criminal careers in adult Dutch offenders (Codebook and Documentation). NSCR, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  34. Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, Muthén B (in press) Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Draft available at: To appear in: Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
  35. Piquero AR (2007) Taking stock of developmental trajectories of criminal activity over the life course. In: Liberman A (ed) The long view of crime: a synthesis of longitudinal research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Piquero AR, Buka SL (2002) Linking juvenile and adult pattern of criminal activity in the providence cohort to the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. J Crim Justice 30:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm: background and recent developments. Crime and Justice: A Rev Res 30:359–506Google Scholar
  38. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  39. Raudenbush SW (2005) How do we study “what happens next”? Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 602:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roeder K, Lynch K, Nagin D (1999) Modeling uncertainty in latent class membership: a case study in criminology. J Am Stat Assoc 94:766–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roeder K, Wasserman L (1997) Practical Bayesian density estimation using mixtures of normals. J Am Stat Assoc 92:894–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2005a) A life-course view of the development of crime. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 602:12–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2005b) Seductions of methods: rejoinder to Nagin and Tremblay’s “developmental trajectory groups: fact or fiction?”. Criminology 43:905–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Soromenho G (1994) Comparing approaches for testing the number of components in a finite mixture model. Comput Stat 9:65–78Google Scholar
  47. Tracy P, Wolfgang ME, Figlio RM (1990). Delinquency careers in two birth cohorts. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Program in Survey MethodologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations