Suchergebnisse

Causes of divergent estimates of rape in the US were examined through comparison of the procedures of two ostensibly similar surveys: the National Crime Victimization Survey & the National Women's Study. Several sources of divergence are discussed: (1) use of slightly different populations & samples; (2) differences in the bounded interview procedure used; (3) use of different longitudinal components (ie, households vs persons); (4) differing reference periods (ie, 6 months vs 1 year); (5) differing use of computer-assisted telephone interviews; (6) use of different cuing strategies; (7) overall context of the surveys (ie, crime victims identification vs those at risk for substance abuse); (8) differences in operational definition of series incidence & repeat victimization; & (9) use of male & female vs female-only interviewers. It is suggested that more attention needs to be paid to the validity of such self-reports to defend the data. 1 Appendix, 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

A critique of a Herbert Koppel's bulletin, "Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization" (Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report NCJ-104274, Washington, DC: US Dept of Justice, 1987), which attempts to present technical information to a lay audience. The report presents data concerning probability of victimization over the course of a lifetime, drawing on National Crime Survey statistics. It is suggested that the bulletin presents a useful new way to analyze risk of victimization; however, its conclusion -- that 83% of persons age 12+ are likely to be victims of violent, personal crime -- is sensational & inflated. 2 References. C. Grindle

Cover; Half-title; Series-title; Title; Copyright; Contents; Acknowledgments; Contributor Biographies; INTRODUCTION; OVERVIEW OF THE TWO NATIONAL MEASURES OF U.S. CRIME; DEFINING DIVERGENCE AND CONVERGENCE; SOURCES OF DIVERGENCE IN THE NCVS; SOURCES OF DIVERGENCE IN THE UCR; CONCLUSION; Index. - This book examines recent changes in the UCR and the NCVS and assesses the effect of divergence

This article is part of a larger study of public attitudes toward immigration in seven countries that historically and currently have had different policies and practices vis-a-vis immigration. The countries involved are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan and the United States. The time frame for which most of the public opinion data will be reported is from 1970 through 1995. The data have been collected from national surveys that were conducted in each of the countries.

This study investigates the question of reliability among four widely used cross‐national data sets by constructing an error framework that relates types of errors to uses of the data. The findings indicate that (1) for nation‐by‐nation point estimation, the four data sets differ by varying degrees, (2) for aggregate point estimation in cross‐sectional descriptive and longitudinal descriptive studies, they are statistically similar, and (3) for analytic or explanatory cross‐sectional purposes, they yield statistically and substantively similar results. In short, for studies seeking aggregate descriptions of world crime or analytic explanations of cross‐national crime rates, differences in the data sets do not make a difference in the results.