Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Addington, L. A. (2005). Disentangling the effects of bounding and mobility on reports of criminal victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 21: (this issue)

  • A. D. Biderman (1967) ArticleTitleSurveys of population samples for estimating crime incidence Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci 374 16–33

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, VA

  • A. D. Biderman L. A. Johnson J. McIntyre A. W. Weir (1967) Field 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 Office Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Brame R. Paternoster P. Mazerolle A. Piquero (1998) ArticleTitleTesting for the equality of maximum-likelihood regression coefficients between two independent equations J. Quant. Criminol. 14 IssueID3 245–261 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1023030312801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Census

  • Bushery, J. M. (1978). NCS Noninterview Rates by Time-in-Sample. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandum

  • D. Cantor J. P. Lynch (2000) Self-Report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization D. Duffee (Eds) Criminal Justice 2000: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Vol. 4 Government Printing Office Washington, DC 85–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalano, S. (2004). Criminal Victimization 2003, US Government Printing Office, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (NCJ 205455), Washington, DC

  • R. Chilton J. Jarvis (1999) ArticleTitleVictims 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. 15 IssueID2 193–205 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1007526922338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. A. Dillman J. L. Eltinge R. M. Groves R. J. A. Little (2002) Survey nonresponse in design, data collection, and analysis R. M. Groves D. A. Dillman J. L. Eltinge R. J. A. Little (Eds) Survey Nonresponse Wiley New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Finkelhor N. Asdigian J. Dziuba-Leatherman (1995) ArticleTitleVictimization prevention programs for children: A follow-up Am. J. Public Health 85 1684–1689 Occurrence Handle7503345

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, VA

  • 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, VA

  • R. M. Groves M. P. Couper (1998) Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys Wiley New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • B. A. Harris-Kjoetin C. Tucker (1998) ArticleTitleLongitudinal nonresponse in the current population survey (CPS) ZUMA Nachtrichen Spezial 4 263–272

    Google Scholar 

  • D. W. Hosmer S. Lemeshow (2000) Applied Logistic Regression EditionNumber2 Wiley New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. P. (1988). The Social Environment and Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Unpublished doctoral dissertation

  • 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)

  • R. G. Lehnen A. J. Reiss (1978a) ArticleTitleResponse effects in the national crime survey Victimology 3 IssueID1–2 110–122

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, VA

  • 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, NY

  • J. H. Madans J. C. Kleinman C. S. Cox H. E. Barbano J. J. Feldman B. Cohen F. F. Finucane J. Cornoni-Huntley (1986) ArticleTitleTen years after NHANES I: Report of initial follow up, 1982–1984 Public Health Reports 101 465–473 Occurrence Handle3094075

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

  • C. M. Rennison M. R. Rand (2003) Criminal Victimization, 2002 Government Printing Office, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • M. R. Rand C. M. Rennison (2002) ArticleTitleTrue crime stories? Accounting for differences in our national crime indicators Chance 15 IssueID1 47–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G. (1981). Issues in the Measurement of Victimization. Government Printing Office, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, (NCJ 74682), Washington, DC

  • Sliwa, G. E. (1977). Analysis of Nonresponse Rates for Various Household Surveys. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandum

  • STATA Statistical Software (2003). Release 8.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX

  • Taylor, B. M. (1989). New Directions for the National Crime Survey. Government Printing Office, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, (NCJ 115571), Washington, DC

  • 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, DC

  • 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, DC

  • Woltman, H. (1975). Recall Bias and Telescoping in the NCS. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Unpublished memorandum

  • 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 memorandum

  • 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 memorandum

  • 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, VA

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy C. Hart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hart, T.C., Rennison, C.M. & Gibson, C. Revisiting Respondent “Fatigue Bias” in the National Crime Victimization Survey. J Quant Criminol 21, 345–363 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-005-4275-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-005-4275-4

Keywords

Navigation