Exploring the effects of changes in design on the analytical uses of the NCVS data

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 293-319

  Cantor, David ^a   Lynch, James P ^b  

^a WESTAT   (United States)

^b JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cueing; NCVS; Recall; Redesign; Response process; Victimization surveys

Indexed keywords

EID: 24044460107     PISSN: 07484518     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10940-005-4273-6     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Aquilino, W. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Public Opin. Quart. 58: 210-240.
2. Biderman, A. D., and Lynch, J. P. (1981). Recency bias in data on self reported victimization. In Proceedings of the Social Statistical Section, American Statistical Association, Washington, D.C.: The American Statistical Association.
3. Biderman, A. D., and Lynch, J. P. (1984). Cars, Crimes and Crime Statistics: What the UCR Does Not Tell Us But Should. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 7.
4. Biderman, A. D., and Moore, J. (1982). Report on the Workshop on Cognitive Issues in Surveys of Retrospective Surveys, Bureau of Social Science Research and U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.
5. Biderman, A. D., Cantor, D., Lynch, J. P., and Martin, E. (1985). Final Report of the National Crime Survey Redesign, Bureau of Social Science Research, Washington, D.C.
6. Cantor, D. (1984). Comparing Bounded and Unbounded Three and Six Month reference Periods in Rate estimation, Bureau of Social Science Research, Washington, D.C.
7. Cantor, D., and Lynch, J. P. (2000). Self-report surveys as measures of crime and victimization. Criminal Justice 2000: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice2, Vol. IV. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
8. Fendrich, M., and Vaughn, C. (1994). Diminished lifetime substance use overtime: An inquiry into differential under-reporting. Public Opin. Quart. 58: 96-123.
9. Groves, R. (1989). Survey Errors and Survey Costs, Wiley, New York.
10. Hubble, D. (1995). The National Crime Victimization Survey Redesign: New Questionnaire and Procedures Development and Phase-In Methodology." Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Orlando, FL.
11. Hubble, D., and Wilder, B. E. (1988). Preliminary results from the National Crime Survey CATI experiment. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association: Survey Methods Section, New Orleans, LA, August 22-25.
12. Kindermann, C., Lynch, J. P., and Cantor, D. (1997). The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates: Data Brief, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.
13. Kobelarcik, E. L., Alexander, C. A., Singh, R. P., and Shapiro, G.M. (1983). Alternative reference periods for the National Crime Survey. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Methods, Washington, D.C.: American Statistical Association.
14. Krosnick, J. A., and Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin. Quart. 51: 201-219.
15. Lynch, J. P. (1996). Clarifying divergent estimates of the incidence of rape from three National Surveys. Public Opin. Quart. 60(3): 410-430.
16. Lynch, J. P., and Cantor D. (1996). Models for Adjusting the NCVS Trends for Design Differences Between the NCS and the NCVS. Memorandum to NCVS Sub-committee of the American Statistical Association Committee on Law and Justice Statistics. May 28, 1996.
17. Lynch, J. P., and Danner, M. J. E. (1993). Offense seriousness scaling: The limits of the scenario method. J. Quant. Criminal. 9(3): 309-322.
18. Martin, E. with Groves, R. M., Matlin, J., and Miller, C. (1986). Report on the Development of Alternative Screening Procedures for the National Crime Survey, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
19. Mensch, B. S., and Kandel, D. B. (1988). Dropping out of high school and drug involvement. Sociology of Education 61: 95-113.
20. Miller, P. V., and Groves, R. M. (1985). Matching survey responses to official records: Validity in victimization reporting. Public Opin. Quart. 49: 366-380.
21. Penick, B. K. E., and Owens, M. (1976). Surveying Crime, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
22. Pascale, J. (1995). Report on the Redesign of the National Crime Victimization Survey. Unpublished paper ICPSR, University of Michigan.
23. Persley, C. (1995). "The National Crime Victimization Survey Redesign: Measuring the Impact of New Methods." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Statistical Association, Orlando Florida, August 13, 1995.
24. Rand, M., and B. Taylor (1995). "The National Crime Victimization Survey Redesign: New Understandings of Victimization Dynamics and Measurement." Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Orlando, FL, August 13-17.
25. Schwartz, N. (1995). "What respondents learn from questionnaires: The survey interview and the logic of conversation". Int. Stat. Rev. 63: 153-177.
26. Strack, F., and Martin, L. L. (1987). Thinking, judging, and communicating a process account of context effects in attitude surveys. In Hippler, H. J., Schwarz, N., and Sudman, S. (eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 123-148.
27. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., and Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking About Answers; The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
28. Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. (2000). Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.
29. Tourengeau, R. (1984). Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In Jabine, T., Straf, M., Tanur, J. M., and Tourangeau R. (eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge Between Disciplines, pp. 73-100. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.