Scaling Criminal Offending
- 1.6k Downloads
This paper reviews a century of research on creating theoretically meaningful and empirically useful scales of criminal offending and illustrates their strengths and weaknesses.
The history of scaling criminal offending is traced in a detailed literature review focusing on the issues of seriousness, unidimensionality, frequency, and additivity of offending. Modern practice in scaling criminal offending is measured using a survey of 130 articles published in five leading criminology journals over a two-year period that included a scale of individual offending as either an independent or dependent variable. Six scaling methods commonly used in contemporary criminological research are demonstrated and assessed using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979: dichotomous, frequency, weighted frequency, variety, summed category, and item response theory ‘theta’.
The discipline of criminology has seen numerous scaling techniques introduced and forgotten. While no clearly superior method dominates the field today, the most commonly used scaling techniques are dichotomous and frequency scales, both of which are fraught with methodological pitfalls including sensitivity to the least serious offenses.
Variety scales are the preferred criminal offending scale because they are relatively easy to construct, possess high reliability and validity, and are not compromised by high frequency non-serious crime types.
KeywordsCrime scales Item response theory Variety scales
I am indebted to Erin Sweeten, Shawn Bushway, Denise Gottfredson, John Laub, Ray Paternoster, Mike Reisig, Scott Decker, the editors of this journal, and three anonymous reviewers for valuable guidance in the development of this paper.
- Beccaria C (1764) On crimes and punishment. (trans. H. Paolucci). Bobbs-Merrill, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
- Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher C (eds) (1986) Criminal careers and “career criminals”, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Burt C (1925) The young delinquent. University of London Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Clark WW (1922) Whittier scale for grading juvenile offenses. California Bureau of Juvenile Research, WhittierGoogle Scholar
- Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS (1985) Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Menard S (1989) Multiple problem youth: delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Farrington DP, Coid JW, Harnett LM, Jolliffe D, Soteriou N, Turner RE, and West DJ (2006) Criminal careers up to age 50 and life success up to age 48: new findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. 2nd Ed. Home Office Research Study No. 299, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Frankel MR, McWilliams HA, and Spencer BD (1983) National longitudinal survey of labor force behavior, youth survey (NLS): technical sampling report. NLSY User Services, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
- Goring C (1913) The english convict. His Majesty’s Printing Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gorsuch JH (1938) A scale of seriousness of crimes. J Crim Law Criminol 29:245–252Google Scholar
- Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- Hirschi T (1969) Causes of delinquency. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Hirschi T, Selvin HC (1967) Delinquency research: an appraisal of analytic methods. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Huizinga D, Elliott DS (1986) Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. J Quant Criminol 2:293–327Google Scholar
- Kelly DH, Winslow RW (1970) Seriousness of delinquent behavior: an alternative perspective. British J Criminol 10:124–135Google Scholar
- Lessieur HR, Lehman PM (1975) Remeasuring delinquency: a replication and critique. British J Criminol 15:69–80Google Scholar
- McIver JP, Carmines EG (1981) Unidimensional scaling. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07–024. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- Merton RK (1961) Social problems and sociological theory. In: Merton RK, Nisbet RA (eds) Contemporary social problems: an introduction to the sociology of deviant behavior. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc, New York, pp 697–737Google Scholar
- Mursell GR (1932) A revision of whittier scale for grading juvenile offenses. Journal of Juvenile Research 3:246–250Google Scholar
- Nagin DS (2005) Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Powers E, Witmer H (1951) An experiment in the prevention of delinquency. The cambridge-somerville youth study. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Scott PD (1964) Approved school success rates. British J Criminol 4:525–556Google Scholar
- Sellin T, Wolfgang ME (1964) The measurement of delinquency. Patterson Smith, MontclairGoogle Scholar
- Sellin T, Wolfgang ME (1969) Measuring delinquency. In: Sellin T, Wolfgang ME (eds) Delinquency: selected studies. Wiley, New York, pp 1–10Google Scholar
- Slawson J (1926) The delinquent boy. Gorham, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Walker MA (1978) Measuring the seriousness of crimes. British J Criminol 18:348–364Google Scholar
- Wolfgang ME, Figlio RM, Sellin T (1972) Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Wolfgang ME, Figlio RM, Tracy PE, Singer SI (1985) The national survey of crime severity. NCJ-96017. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Wooldridge JM (2009) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, 4th edn. South-Western, BostonGoogle Scholar