Advertisement

Methodological Issues in the Study of Victimization

  • Wesley G. Skogan

Abstract

Victimization surveys collect data on criminal incidents through interviews with their participants. This use of self-reports of past events raises important measurement issues. Participants in a victimization survey are more akin to observers than to respondents in traditional opinion surveys. We assume that people may or may not have been involved in events which have inter-subjective meaning, about which independent observers could agree. The task of interviewers is to elicit accurate reports of those occurrences.

Keywords

Census Bureau Reference Period Victimization Survey Police File Crime Victim 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abt Associates (1977), Victimization in Joliet and Peoria, Illinois (Cambridge, Mass: Abt Associates).Google Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (1975), General social surveycrime victims. Canberra (A.B.S.#) Catalogue no. 4105.0. 22 June 1979 (May).Google Scholar
  3. Bailar, Barbara A. (1975), “The Effects of Rotation Group Bias on Estimates from Panel Surveys,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70 (Mar.) 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailar, Barbara A. (1976), “Some Sources of Error and Their effect on Census Statistics,” Demography, 13 (May) 273–86.Google Scholar
  5. Bailar, Barbara A., Bailey, Leory and Stevens, Joyce (1977), “Measures of Interviewer Bias and Variance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (Aug.) 337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, Leroy, Moore, Thomas F. and Bailar, Barbara A. (1978), “An Interviewer Variance Study for the Eight Impact Cities of the National Crime Survey Cities Sample, “Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73 (Mar.) 23–30.Google Scholar
  7. Balvanz, Bill (1979), “The Effects of the National Survey of Crime Severity on the Victimization Rates Determined from the National Crime Survey,” Washington, DC: Demographic Surveys Division, US Census Bureau, memorandum, 15 Oct.Google Scholar
  8. Biderman, Albert D. (1967), “Surveys of Population Samples for Estimating Crime Incidence,” Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374 (Nov.) 16–33.Google Scholar
  9. Biderman, Albert D., and Reiss, Jr, Albert J., (1967), “On exploring the ‘dark figure’ of crime,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374 (Nov.) 1–15.Google Scholar
  10. Biderman, Albert D., Johnson, Louise A., McIntyre Jennie, and Weir Adrianne W., (1967) Report on a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia on Victimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement, US President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Field Survey I. (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
  11. Biderman, Albert D. (1970a), “Memos Concerning National Crime Survey Developments (Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science Research, memoranda) 9 Apr. and 10 June.Google Scholar
  12. Biderman, Albert D. (1970b), “Time Distortions of Victimization and Mnemonic Effects (Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science Research, memorandum).Google Scholar
  13. Biderman, Albert D. (1971), “Memo Concerning National Crime Survey Developments (Washington DC: Bureau of Social Science Research, memorandum).Google Scholar
  14. Biderman, Albert D. (1973), “Memo Concerning National Crime Survey Developments (Washington DC: Bureau of Social Science Research, memorandum, Mar.).Google Scholar
  15. Biderman, Albert D. (1975), A Social Indicator of Interpersonal Harm (Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science Research).Google Scholar
  16. Booth, Alan, Johnson, David R., and Choldin Harvey M., (1977), “Correlates of City Crime Rates: Victimization Survey Versus Official Statistics,” Social Problems, vol. 25, 187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buckhout, Robert (1974), “Eyewitness Testimony,” Scientific American, vol. 231 (Dec.) 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cahalan, Don (1968), “Correlates of Respondent Accuracy in the Denver Validity Survey,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 32 (Winter) 607–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cannell, Charles F., Oksenberg, Lois, and Converse, Jean M. (1979), Experiments in Interviewing Techniques: Field Experiments in Health Reporting, 1971–77 (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan).Google Scholar
  20. Catlin, Gary, and Murray, Susan (1979), Report on Canadian Victimization Survey Methodological pretests (Ottawa: Statistics Canada).Google Scholar
  21. Cirel, Paul, Evans, Patricia, McGillis, Daniel, and Whitcomb, Debra, (1977), Community Crime Prevention ProgramSeattle, Washington (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
  22. Clausen, Aage R. (1968), “Response Validity: Vote Report,” Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (Winter) 588–606.Google Scholar
  23. Corrado, Raymond R., Glackman, William, and Roesch, Ronald (1979), Interim Report One: Extent and Distribution of Victimization (Burnaby, BC: Department of Criminology, Simon Fraser University).Google Scholar
  24. Cowan, Charles D. (1976). “Twelve and Thirteen-Year-old Interviewing Experiment” Washington, DC: Statistical Research Division, US Census Bureau, memorandum, 8 Apr.Google Scholar
  25. Cowan, Charles D., Murphy, Linda R., and Wiener, Judy (1979), “Effects of Supplemental Questions on Victimization Estimates from the National Crime Survey,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Curtis, Lynn A. (1974), Criminal Violence: National Patterns and Behavior (Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books).Google Scholar
  27. De Neufville, Janet (1975), Social Indicators and Public Policy (New York: Elsevier).Google Scholar
  28. Dodge, Richard W. (1970), “Victim Recall Pretest – Washington, DC” (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, memorandum, 10 June).Google Scholar
  29. Dodge, Richard W., and Turner, Anthony G. (1971), “Methodological Foundations for Establishing a National Survey of Victimization,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Aug.Google Scholar
  30. Dodge, Richard W. (1975), “Series Victimizations: What Is To Be Done?” (Washington, DC: Crime Statistics Analysis Staff, US Census Bureau, memorandum, 31 Oct.)Google Scholar
  31. Dodge, Richard W., Lentzner, Harold, and Shenk, Frederick (1976) “Crime in the United States: a Report on the National Crime Survey,” in Wesley G. Skogan (ed.), Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime (Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger) pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  32. Dodge, Richard W. (1977a), “Analysis of Screen Questions on the National Crime Survey” (Washington DC: Crime Statistics Analysis Staff, U.S. Census Bureau, memorandum, 22 Dec).Google Scholar
  33. Dodge, Richard W. (1977b), “A Preliminary Inquiry into Series Victimizations.” (Washington, DC: Crime Statistics Analysis Staff, US Census Bureau, memorandum, July).Google Scholar
  34. Dodge, Richard W., and Lentzner, Harold R. (1978), “Patterns of Personal Series Incidents in the National Crime Survey,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, San Diego, Calif., 14–17 Aug.Google Scholar
  35. Ennis, Philip (1967), Criminal Victimization in the United States: a Report of a National Survey, US President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Field Survey II (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
  36. Garofalo, James, and Hindelang, Michael J. (1977), An introduction to the National Crime Survey (Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. US Department of Justice).Google Scholar
  37. Gottfredson, Michael R., and Hindelang, Michael J. (1977), “A Consideration of Memory decay and Telescoping Biases in Victimization Surveys,” Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 5, 202–16.Google Scholar
  38. Graham, Dorcas (1974), “Reasons for Differences in the Number of Crime Incidents Reported on the Original and Reinterview Survey by Type of Crime, November 1972 to June 1975 (Washington, DC: Statistical Methods Division, US Census Bureau, memorandum, 30 Oct.).Google Scholar
  39. Gray, Percy G. (1955), “The Memory Factor in Social Surveys,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 50 (June) 344–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Groves, Robert M. (1977), “A Comparison of National Telephone and Personal Interview Surveys: Some Response and Nonresponse Differences,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.Google Scholar
  41. Groves, Robert M. (1979), “Actors and Questions in Telephone and Personal Interview Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 43 (Summer) 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hindelang, Michael J. (1976), Criminal Victimization in Eight American Cities (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger).Google Scholar
  43. Hindelang, Michael J. (1978), “Race and Involvement in Crimes,” American Sociological Review, vol. 43 (Feb.) 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hindelang, Michael J., Gottfredson, Michael R., and James Garofalo (1978), Victims of Personal Crime (Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger).Google Scholar
  45. Jacob, Herbert (1975), “Crimes, Victims and Statistics: Some Words of Caution” unpublished manuscript (Evanston, III.: Department of Political Science, Northwestern University).Google Scholar
  46. Kalish, Carol B. (1974), Crimes and Victims: a Report on the Dayton-San-Jose Pilot Survey of Victimization (Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, US Department of Justice).Google Scholar
  47. Klecka, William R., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. (1974), “The Efficiency Biases, and Problems of Random Digit Dialing,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (June).Google Scholar
  48. Klecka, William R., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. (1978), “Random Digit Dialing: a Comparison to Personal Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 42 (Spring) 105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lehnen, Robert G., and Reiss, Albert J. Jr (1978), “Some Response Effects in the National Crime Survey,” Victimology, vol. 3, nos. 1–2, 110–24.Google Scholar
  50. Martin, Elizabeth (1978), “A Twist on the Heisenberg Principle – or How Crime Affects Its Measurement,” unpublished paper (Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina).Google Scholar
  51. Murphy, Linda R., and Cowan, Charles D. (1976), “Effects of Bounding on Telescoping in the National Crime Survey,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Boston, Mass. (23–26 Aug.)Google Scholar
  52. National Research Council (1976), Surveying Crime: Report of the Panel for the Evaluation of Crime Surveys (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences).Google Scholar
  53. Neter, John, and Wakeberg, Joseph (1964), “A Study of Response Errors in Expenditures Data from Household Interviews,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 59 (Mar.) 17–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reiss, Albert J., Jr (1969), Field Survey: Appendix A to Crime Against Small Business (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
  55. Reiss, Albert J. Jr (1977a), Final Report for Analytical Studies of Victimization Using National Crime Survey Panel Data (New Haven, Conn.: Institution for Policy Studies, Yale University).Google Scholar
  56. Reiss, Albert J., Jr (1977b), A Note on Optimal Reference Period of Recall (New Haven, Conn.: Institution for Policy Studies, Yale University, memorandum).Google Scholar
  57. Reiss, Albert J., Jr (1978), Final Report for Analytical Studies of Victimization by Crime Using National Crime Survey Panel Data (New Haven, Conn.: Institution for Policy Studies, Yale University).Google Scholar
  58. Research Triangle Institute (1977), Analysis of the Utility and Benefits of the National Crime Survey (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute).Google Scholar
  59. Rodgers, Theresa F. (1976), “Interviews by Telephone and In-Person: Quality of Responses and Field Performance,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 40 (Spring) 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneider, Anne L. (1976), “Victimization Surveys and Criminal Justice System Evaluation,” in Wesley G. Skogan (ed.), Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger) pp. 135–50.Google Scholar
  61. Schneider, Anne L. (1977), The Portland Forward Records Check of Crime Victims: Final Report (Eugene, Oreg.: Institute for Policy Analysis).Google Scholar
  62. Schwind, Hans-Dieter, Ahlborn, Wilfried, Eger, Hans, Jany, Ulrich, Pudel, Volker, and Weiss, Rudiger (1975), Dunkelfeldforschung in Göttingen 1973/1974 (Wiesbaden: BKA-Forshungsreihe).Google Scholar
  63. Shichor, David, Decker, David L., and O’Brien Robert, M (1979), “Population Density and Criminal Victimization,” Criminology, vol. 17 (Aug.) 184–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Skogan, Wesley G. (1974), “The Validity of Official Crime Statistics: an Empirical Investigation,” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 55 (June) 25–38.Google Scholar
  65. Skogan, Wesley G. (1975), “Measurement Problems in Official and Survey Crime Rates,” Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 3 (Spring) 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Skogan, Wesley G. (1976a), “Citizen Reporting of Crime: Some National Panel data,” Criminology, vol. 13 (Feb.) 535–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Skogan, Wesley G. (1976b), “Crime and Crime Rates,” in Wesley G. Skogan (ed.) Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger) pp. 105–20.Google Scholar
  68. Skogan, Welsey G., and Klecka, William R. (1977), The Fear of Crime (Washington, DC: American Political Science Association).Google Scholar
  69. Skogan, Wesley G. (1978), The Northernwestern University Center for Urban Affairs Random Digit Dialing Telephone Survey (Evanston, Ill.: Center for Urban Affairs, Northernwestern University).Google Scholar
  70. Skogan, Wesley G. (1979), “Crime in Contemporary America,” in Hugh Graham and Ted Robert Gurr (eds.), Violence in America, 2nd edn (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publication) ch. 14.Google Scholar
  71. Skogan, Wesley G. and Maxfield, Michael G. (1980), Coping with Crime: Victimization, Fear and Reactions to Crime in Three American cities (Evanston, Ill. Center for Urban Affairs, North-western University).Google Scholar
  72. Small Business Administration (1969), Crime Against Small Business, a Report of the Small Business Administration Transmitted to the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
  73. Sparks, Richard, Hazel G. Genn, and David J. Dodd (1977), Surveying Victims (New York: John Wiley).Google Scholar
  74. Statistics Canada (1979), Greater Vancouver Crime Survey Documentation Package 4 vols (Ottawa, Special Surveys Group, Statistics Canada).Google Scholar
  75. Steinmetz, Carl (1979), “An Empirically Tested Analysis of Victimization Risks,” paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Victimology (Münster, Germany, 2–8 Sept.).Google Scholar
  76. Stephan, Egon (1975), “Die ergebnisse der Stuttgarter Opferbefragung unter berücksichtigung vergleichbarer Amerikanischer daten,” Kriminalstatistic, vol. 5, 201–6.Google Scholar
  77. Stephan, Egon (1976), “Die Stuttgarter Opferbefragung (Wiesbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt).Google Scholar
  78. Stephan, Egon (n.d.), “Report on Two Studies of the Perception of Crime and Crime Control from the Victim’s Point of View,” unpublished manuscript. (Freiburg, Germany: Max-Planck-Institute)Google Scholar
  79. Sudman, Seymour, and Bradburn, Norman M. (1974), Response Effects in Surveys: a Review and Synthesis (Chicago, Ill.: Aldine).Google Scholar
  80. Traugott, Michael W., and Katosh, John P. (1979), “Response Validity in Surveys of Voting Behavior,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 43 (Fall) 359–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tuchfarber, Alfred, and Klecka, William R. (1976) Random Digit Dialing: Lowering the Cost of Victimization Surveys (Washington, DC: The Police Foundation).Google Scholar
  82. Turner, Anthony G. (1970), Personal Victimization Pretest: Evaluation of Findings (Washington, DC: Statistical Research Center, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, memorandum, 17 Apr.).Google Scholar
  83. Turner, Anthony G. (1972a), The San Jose Methods Test of Known Crime Victims (Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, US Department of Justice).Google Scholar
  84. Turner, Anthony G. (1972b), “Methodological Issues in the Development of the National Crime Survey Panel: Partial findings” (Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, US Department of Justice, memorandum, Dec.).Google Scholar
  85. Turner, Anthony G., and Dodge, Richard W. (1972), “Surveys of Personal and Organizational Victimization,” paper prepared for the Symposium on Studies of Public Experience, Knowledge and Opinion of Crime and Justice (Washington, DC, Mar.)Google Scholar
  86. Turner, Anthony G. (1977), “An Experiment to Compare Three Interview Procedures in the National Crime Survey,” (Washington, DC: Statistical Research Division, US Census Bureau, memorandum, Mar.).Google Scholar
  87. US Census Bureau (1979), “Survey Documentation: National Crime Survey Central Cities Sample, 1974” (Washington DC: US Census Bureau, memorandum, June).Google Scholar
  88. US Department of Justice (1975) Criminal Victimization Surveys in 13 American Cities (Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration).Google Scholar
  89. US Department of Justice (1979a), Criminal Victimization in the United States 1976 (Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration).Google Scholar
  90. US Department of Justice (1979b) Criminal Victimization in the United States: Summary Findings of 1977–78 Changes in Crime and of Trends since 1973. Washington, DC National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration).Google Scholar
  91. Weiss, Carol M. (1968), “Validity of Welfare Mother’s Interview Responses” Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (Winter) 622–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wolf, Preben (1976a), “On Individual Victims of Certain Crimes in Four Scandinavian Countries 1970/74: a Comparative Study” paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Victimology (Boston, 5–11 Sept.).Google Scholar
  93. Wolf, Preben (1976b), Note on Some of the Methods applied in the Scandinavian Victim Surveys 1970–74 (Kobenhaven: Sociologisk Institut, Kobenhaven Universitet).Google Scholar
  94. Wolfgang, Marvin E. (1978), National survey of crime severity, Grant Report to LEAA-NCJISS, 9 Nov.Google Scholar
  95. Woltman, Henry F., Bushery, John, and Carstensen, Larry (1975) “Recall Bias and Telescoping in the National Crime Survey” (Washington, DC: Statistical Methods Division, US Census Bureau, memorandum, 23 Sept.).Google Scholar
  96. Woltman, Henry F., and Cadek, Glenn (1977), “Are Memory Biases in the National Crime Survey Associated with the Characteristics of the Criminal Incident?” (Washington, DC: Statistical Methods Division, US Census Bureau memorandum, 4 Apr.).Google Scholar
  97. Woltman, Henry F., and Bushery, John M. (1977a), “Update of the National Crime Survey Panel bias Study” (Washington, DC: Statistical Methods Division, US Census Bureau, memorandum, 11 July).Google Scholar
  98. Woltman, Henry F., and Bushery, John M. (1977b) “Results of the National Crime Survey Maximum Personal Visit, Maximum Telephone Interview Experiment” (Washington, DC Statistical Methods Division, US Census Bureau, memorandum, 9 Dec.).Google Scholar
  99. Yost, Linda R., and Dodge, Richard W. (1970), “Household Survey of Victims of Crime: Second Pretest – Baltimore, Maryland” (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, memorandum, 30 Nov.).Google Scholar
  100. Zimring, Franklin (1972), “The Medium Is the Message: Firearm Caliber as a Determinant of Death from Assault” Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 1 (Jan.) 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ezzat A. Fattah 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wesley G. Skogan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations