Methodological quality and the evaluation of anti-crime programs

Journal of Experimental Criminology

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 329-337

  Farrington, David P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Crime; Evaluation; Methodological quality; Research design

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750504012     PISSN: 15733750     EISSN: 15728315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11292-006-9012-y     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Farrington, D. P. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice, vol. 4 (pp. 257-308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, 49-58.
4. Farrington, D. P. & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 35 - 49.
5. Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2003). Family-based prevention of offending: A meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36, 127-151.
6. Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology 1, 9-38.
7. Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2006). How important is "regression to the mean" in area-based crime prevention research? Crime Prevention and Community Safety 8, 50-60.
8. Farrington, D. P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St. Ledger, R. & West, D. J. (1990). Minimizing attrition in longitudinal research: Methods of tracing and securing cooperation in a 24-year follow-up study. In D. Magnusson & L. Bergman (Eds.), Data quality in longitudinal research (pp. 122-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Loeber, R. & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.) (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Moher, D., Schulz, K. F. & Altman, D. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 285, 1987-1991.
11. National Research Council (2005). Improving evaluation of anticrime programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Painter, K. A. & Farrington, D. P. (2001). The financial benefits of improved street lighting, based on crime reduction. Lighting Research and Technology 33, 3-12.
13. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
14. Shepherd, J. P. (2003). Explaining feast or famine in randomized field trials: Medical science and criminology compared. Evaluation Review 27, 290-315.
15. Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs.