Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Identification Issues in Life Course Criminology

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_406

Overview

In everyday language, the word “identify” refers to the presentation of proof or convincing evidence that something is what it appears to be. This is also what identification means in the social sciences and in life-course criminology. Life-course criminologists try to understand how crime develops, changes, and evolves over the life span. Their efforts usually fall into one or more of the following two categories: (1) describe stability and change in some criminologically interesting characteristic or behavior and (2) discern whether certain factors are causes or correlates of criminal behavior. Within each of these categories, a focus on identification leads to questions about what can be measured, what is being measured, and what are the main sources of uncertainty. This entry provides a brief discussion of the key identification issues in each category of life-course research.

General Terminology

The most comprehensive contemporary works in the identification area are...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Brame R, Turner MG, Paternoster R, Bushway SD (2012) Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages 8–23 in a national sample. Pediatrics 129:21–27Google Scholar
  2. Cochran WC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW (1954) Statistical problems of the Kinsey Report. J Am Stat Assoc 48:673–716Google Scholar
  3. Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Menard S (1989) Multiple problem youth: delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ, Arneklev BJ (1993) Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:5–29Google Scholar
  6. Heckman JJ (1978) Simple statistical models for discrete panel data developed and applied to test the hypothesis of true state dependence against the hypothesis of spurious state dependence. Annales de l’inséé 30–31:227–269Google Scholar
  7. Huizinga D, Esbensen F-A, Weiher AW (1991) Are there multiple paths to delinquency? J Crim Law Criminol 82:83–118Google Scholar
  8. Koopmans TC (1949) Identification problems in economic model construction. Econometrica 17:125–144Google Scholar
  9. Kurlychek MC, Bushway SD, Brame R (2012) Long-term crime desistance and recidivism patterns: evidence from the Essex County convicted felon study. Criminology 50:71–103Google Scholar
  10. Lauritsen J (1998) The age-crime debate: assessing the limits of longitudinal self-report data. Soc Forces 77:127–155Google Scholar
  11. Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Van Kammen W, Farrington DP (1991) Initiation, escalation, and desistance in juvenile offending and their correlates. J Crim Law Criminol 82:36–82Google Scholar
  12. Maltz MD (1984) Recidivism. Academic, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  13. Manski CF (1995) Identification problems in social science research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Manski CF (2003) Partial identification of probability distributions. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Manski CF (2011) Policy analysis with incredible certitude. Econ J 121:F261–F289Google Scholar
  16. Manski CF, Nagin DS (1998) Bounding disagreements about treatment effects: a case study of sentencing and recidivism. Sociol Methodol 28:99–137Google Scholar
  17. McCurley C (2006) Self-reported law-violating behavior from adolescence to early adulthood in a modern cohort. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Nagin DS, Odgers CL (2010) Group-based trajectory modeling in clinical research. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 6:109–138Google Scholar
  19. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (2000) Population heterogeneity and state dependence: state of the evidence and directions for future research. J Quant Criminol 16:117–144Google Scholar
  20. Nagin DS, Tremblay RE (2005) Developmental trajectory groups: fact or a useful statistical fiction. Criminology 43:873–904Google Scholar
  21. Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin DS, Blokland AAJ (2009) Assessing the impact of first-time imprisonment on offenders’ subsequent criminal career development: a matched samples comparison. J Quant Criminol 25:227–257Google Scholar
  22. Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm. Crime Justice Rev Res 30:359–506Google Scholar
  23. Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2007) Key issues in criminal career research: new analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55Google Scholar
  25. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2005) Seductions of method: rejoinder to Nagin and Tremblay’s “Developmental Trajectory Groups: fact or fiction?”. Criminology 43:905–913Google Scholar
  26. Schmidt P, Witte AD (1988) Predicting recidivism using survival models. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2000) The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In: Dufee D (ed) Measurement and analysis of crime and justice: criminal justice 2000. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 33–83Google Scholar
  28. Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth M, Jang SJ (1991) Testing interactional theory: an examination of reciprocal causal relationships among family, school, and delinquency. J Crim Law Criminol 82:3–35Google Scholar
  29. Tittle CR, Ward DA (1993) The interaction of age with the correlates and causes of crime. J Quant Criminol 9:3–53Google Scholar
  30. Tracy P, Wolfgang M, Figlio RM (1990) Delinquency careers in two birth cohorts. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal Justice and CriminologyUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA