Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 321–343 | Cite as

Disentangling the Effects of Bounding and Mobility on Reports of Criminal Victimization

  • Lynn A. AddingtonEmail author
Article

Replacement respondents who move into NCVS households after the initial bounding interview can introduce measurement error since their reports of victimization may be influenced by their mobility (actual experiences) and by their unbounded interview status (response error). Which of these factors affects reporting is unknown and is the focus of this research. The availability of incoming respondent data from the NCVS School Crime Supplement and mobility status from the NCVS provides a unique opportunity to study these effects separately. Both bounding and mobility were found to influence reporting; however, this influence was not consistent. Unlike findings from past research, bounding only had significant effects on reports of property victimization. Conversely, moving only significantly affected reports of violent victimization. As this study is the first to disentangle the effect of unbounded interview status from mobility on reports of victimization, the findings emphasize the need for further research to better understand these issues.

Keywords

crime measurement survey methodology panel design telescoping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addington, L. A. 2000Examining the Use of Bounded Interviews in the National Crime Victimization SurveyPresentation at the Fifty-second Annual Meeting of the American Society of CriminologySan Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  2. Addington, L. A., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., DeVoe, J. F. 2002Are America’s Schools Safe? Students Speak out 1999 School Crime Supplement Statistical Analysis ReportU.S. Department of EducationWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachman, R., Taylor, B. M. 1994The measurement of family violence and rape by the redesigned National Crime Victimization SurveyJust. Quar11499512Google Scholar
  4. Biderman, A., and Cantor, D. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of bounding, respondent conditioning and mobility as sources of panel bias in the National Crime Survey. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section. American Statistical Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Biderman, A., and Lynch, J. P. (1981). Recency bias in data on self-reported victimization. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Biderman, A., Lynch, J. P. 1991Understanding Crime Incidence Statistics: Why the UCR Diverges from the NCSSpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantor, D., and Lynch, J. P. (2000). Self-report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization. In Duffee, D. (ed.), Criminal Justice 2000: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  8. de Leeuw, E., and Collins, M. (1997). Data collection methods and survey quality: An overview. In Lyberg, L., Biemer, P., Collins, M., de Leeuw, E., and Dippo, C. (eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  9. Dugan, L. 1999The effect of criminal victimization on a household’s moving decisionCriminology37903930Google Scholar
  10. Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. 2000Applied Logistic Regression2John Wiley and Sons, IncNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Kindermann, C., Lynch, J. P., Cantor, D. 1997The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates: Data BriefBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehnen, R. G., Skogan, W. G. 1981The National Crime Survey: Working Papers (Volumes 1 and 2)U.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Lauritsen, J. L., Laub, J. H., Sampson, R. J. 1992Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescentsViolence Vict791108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Loftus, E., Marburger, W. 1983Since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, has anyone beaten you up? Improving the accuracy of retrospective reports with landmark eventsMemory Cognition11114120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lohr, S. L. 1999Sampling: Design and AnalysisDuxbury PressPacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. Murphy, L., Cowan, C. 1984Effects of bounding on telescoping in the National Crime SurveyLehnen, R.Skogan, W. eds. The National Crime Survey: Working Papers (Vol. II)U.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Neter, J., Waksberg, J. 1964A study of response errors in expenditures data from household interviewsJ. Am. Stat. Assoc591755Google Scholar
  18. Planty, M. (2003). An examination of adolescent telescoping: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  19. Skogan, W. G. 1981Issues in the Measurement of VictimizationU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Sudman, S., Finn, A., Lannom, L. 1984The use of bounded recall procedures in single interviewsPublic Opinion Quart48520524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. U.S. Census Bureau2000National Crime Victimization Survey: Interviewing Manual for Field representatives (Working draft)U.S. Census BureauWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. U.S. Department of Justice.1997Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1994U.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. U.S. Department of Justice1998National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement 1995 (Codebook)Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchAnn Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  24. U.S. Department of Justice2001National Crime Victimization Survey (Codebook)Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social ResearchAnn Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  25. Woltman, H., Bushery, J., Carstensen, L. 1984Recall bias and telescoping in the National Crime SurveyLehnen, R.Skogan, W. eds. The National Crime Survey: Working papersU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Justice, Law & SocietyThe American UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations