Advertisement

Probleme der Replikation von Ergebnissen in der Kriminalprävention und die Notwendigkeit der Differenzierung

  • Friedrich Lösel
  • Doris Bender
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Jüngste Publikationen in renommierten Fachzeitschriften wie Nature und Science haben gezeigt, dass es Probleme bei der Replikation von Forschungsergebnissen gibt. Dieser Beitrag informiert über einige Befunde zum Replikationsproblem und befasst sich in diesem Kontext mit der Reproduzierbarkeit von Ergebnissen in der Kriminologie und exemplarisch mit der entwicklungsbezogenen Kriminalprävention. Es zeigt sich, dass zwar im Durchschnitt positive Evaluationsergebnisse vorliegen, aber auch erhebliche Unterschiede in den Effektstärken, die keineswegs nur auf die verschiedenen Inhalte von Programmen zurückzuführen sind. Dies erlaubt keine einfachen Empfehlungen über die Wirksamkeit. Darüber hinaus umfassen die meisten Evaluationen nur kurzfristig Follow-up-Zeiträume. Auch sehr gute Studien liefern nur teilweise konsistente Ergebnisse. Programmentwicklung und -implementierung sind oftmals nicht unabhängig. Die genannten und andere Probleme betreffen nicht nur die entwicklungsorientierte Kriminalprävention, sondern sind allgemeiner. Trotz deutlicher Fortschritte in der einschlägigen Evaluationsforschung zeigt der Beitrag, dass differenziertere Ansätze notwendig sind. Zahlreiche Merkmale der Programme, Kontexte, Zielgruppen und Forschungsmethodik spielen für die Programmwirkungen eine Rolle. Wesentliche Schritte auf dem Weg zu einer differenzierten und replizierten Evidenzbasis werden dargestellt.

Schlüsselwörter

Replikation von Forschungsergebnissen Kriminalprävention Evaluation Meta-Analysen Entwicklungskriminologie 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the Good Lives Model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735 – 755.Google Scholar
  2. Asscher, J. J., Dekovic, M., Manders, W., van der Laan, P. H., Prins, P. J. M., van Arum, S., & Dutch MST Cost-Effectiveness Study Group (2014). Sustainability of the effects of multisystemic therapy for juvenile delinquents in The Netherlands: effects on delinquency and recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 227 – 243.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature, 533, 452 – 454.Google Scholar
  4. Beelmann, A. (2012). The scientific foundation of prevention: The status quo and future challenges for developmental prevention. In T. Bliesener, A. Beelmann & M. Stemmler (Eds.), Antisocial behavior and crime; Contributions of developmental and evaluation research to prevention and intervention (pp. 137 – 163). New York: Hogrefe Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Beelmann, A., Pfost, M., & Schmitt, C. (2014). Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Eine Meta-Analyse der deutschsprachigen Wirksamkeitsforschung. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 22, 1 – 14.Google Scholar
  6. Boisjoli, R., Vitaro, F., Lacourse, E., Barker, E. C., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Impact and clinical significance of a preventive intervention for disruptive boys: 15-year follow-up. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 415 – 419.Google Scholar
  7. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th. ed.). Cincinatti, OH: Anderson.Google Scholar
  8. Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2016). Situational prevention. In D. Weisburd, D. P. Farrington & C. Gill (Eds.), What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews (pp. 111 – 135). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409 – 429.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: successful case studies (2nd ed.). New York: Harrow & Heston.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155 – 159.Google Scholar
  12. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2002). Evaluation of the first 3 years of the Fast Track Prevention Trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 553 – 567.Google Scholar
  13. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2010). Fast Track intervention effects on youth arrests and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 131 – 157.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, B. R., Bumbarger, B. K., & Moore, J. E. (2015). Sustaining evidence-based prevention programs: Correlates in a large-scale dissemination initiative. Prevention Science, 16, 145 – 157.Google Scholar
  15. Curtis, N. M., Ronan, K. R., & Borduin, C. M. (2004). Multisystematic treatment: a metaanalysis of outcome studies. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 411 – 19.Google Scholar
  16. Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, Jr., C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arocleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 9 – 15.Google Scholar
  17. Eisner, M. P. (2014). The South Carolina Triple P System Population Trial to prevent child maltreatment: Seven reasons to be sceptical about the study results. Working paper. Violence Research Centre, Institute of Criminology: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Eisner, M., Humphreys, D. K., Wilson, P., & Gardner, F. (2015). Disclosure of financial conflicts of interests in interventions to improve child psychosocial health: A crosssectional study. PLoS ONE 10(11): e0142803.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142803.
  19. Eisner, M., Ribeaud, D., Jünger, R., & Meidert, U. (2008). Frühprävention von Gewalt. Ergebnisse des Zürcher Interventions- und Präventionsprojektes an Schulen. Zürich: Rüegger Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Fagan, A. A., & Buchanan, M. (2016). What works in crime prevention? Comparison and critical review of three crime prevention registries. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 617 – 649.Google Scholar
  21. Farrington, D. P. (2000). Explaining and preventing crime: The globalization of knowledge. Criminology, 38, 1 – 24.Google Scholar
  22. Farrington, D. P. (2003). A short history of randomised experiments in criminology: A meager feast. Evaluation Review, 27, 218 – 227.Google Scholar
  23. Farrington, D. P., Gaffney, H., Lösel, F., & Ttofi, M. (2017). Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of developmental prevention programs in reducing delinquency, aggression, and bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, in press, online dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2016.11.003.Google Scholar
  24. Farrington, D. P. & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. The Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 35 – 49.Google Scholar
  25. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). Randomized experiments in criminology: What has been learned from long-term follow-ups? In B. C. Welsh, A. A. Braga & G. J. N. Bruinsma (Eds.), Experimental criminology: Prospects for advancing science and public policy (pp. 111 – 140). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fixsen, D. L., Blasé, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 531 – 540.Google Scholar
  27. Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., González Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., Moscicki, E. K., Schinke, S., Valentine, J. C,. & Ji, P. (2005). Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151 – 175.Google Scholar
  28. DFK (Hrsg.) (2013). Entwicklungsförderung und Gewaltprävention für junge Menschen. Impulse des DFK-Sachverständigenrates für die Auswahl & Durchführung wirksamer Programme. Bonn: Deutsches Forum für Kriminalprävention.Google Scholar
  29. Gottfredson1, D. C., Cook, T. D., Gardner, F. E. M., Gorman-Smith, D., Howe, G. W., Sandler, I. N., & Zafft, K. M. (2015). Standards of evidence for efficacy, effectiveness, and scale-up: Next generation. Prevention Science, 16, 893 – 926.Google Scholar
  30. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Groeger-Roth, F. (2015). Die „Grüne Liste Prävention“ – ein Beitrag zur nachhaltigen Kriminalprävention. In W. Schubarth (Hrsg.), Nachhaltige Prävention von Kriminalität, Gewalt und Rechtsextremismus (S. 127 – 143). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  32. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (2009). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents (2. Aufl.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Holzkamp, K. (1968). Wissenschaft als Handlung. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Moher, D., Wager, E., Middleton, P., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F. and the CONSORT Group (2008). CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. Plos Medicine,  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020.
  35. Ioannidis J. P. (2005). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA, 294, 218 – 228.Google Scholar
  36. Ionnidis, J. P. (2013). Ioannidis JP. Implausible results in human nutrition research. British Medical Journal, 347:f6698 (doi:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6698).
  37. Knerr, W., Gardner, F., & Cluver, L. (2013): Improving positive parenting skills and reducing harsh and abusive parenting in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Prevention Science, 14, 352 – 363.Google Scholar
  38. Koehler, J. A., Lösel, F., Humphreys, D. K., & Akoensi, T. D. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 19 – 43.Google Scholar
  39. Leschied, A., & Cunningham, A. (2002). Seeking effective interventions for serious young offenders: Interim results of a four-year randomized study of multisystemic therapy in Ontario, Canada. London, ON: Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System.Google Scholar
  40. Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69 – 81.Google Scholar
  41. Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297 – 320.Google Scholar
  42. Littell, J. H. (2006). The case for Multisystemic Therapy: Evidence or orthodoxy? Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 458 – 472.Google Scholar
  43. Lösel, F. (2007). Doing evaluation in criminology: Balancing scientific and practical demands. In R. D. King & E. Wincup (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice (2. ed., pp. 141 – 170). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lösel, F. (2012). Entwicklungsbezogene Prävention von Gewalt und Kriminalität: Ansätze und Wirkungen. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie und Kriminologie, 6, 71 – 84.Google Scholar
  45. Lösel, F. (2016). Wie wirksam ist die Straftäterbehandlung. In M. Rettenberger & A. Dessecker (Hrsg.), Behandlung im Justizvollzug (S. 17 – 52). Wiesbaden: Kriminologische Zentralstelle.Google Scholar
  46. Lösel, F. (2017a). Evidence comes by replication, but needs differentiation: The reproducibility issue in science and its relevance for criminology. Journal of Experimental Criminology, in press.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292.
  47. Lösel, F. (2017b). Self-control as a theory of crime: A brief stocktaking after 27/42 years. In C. Bijlefeld & P. van der Laan (Eds.), Liber amoricum for Gerben Bruinsma (pp. 232 – 238). The Hague, NL: Boom.Google Scholar
  48. Lösel, F., & Beelmann, A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial behavior: A systematic review of randomized evaluations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 84 – 109.Google Scholar
  49. Lösel, F., & Bender, D. (2012). Child social skills training in the prevention of antisocial development and crime. In D. P. Farrington & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), Handbook of crime prevention (pp. 102 – 129). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Lösel, F., & Bender, D. (2017). Parenting and family-oriented programs for the prevention of child behavior problems: What the evidence tells us. Journal of Family Research/ Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, Special Issue 11, 217 – 239.Google Scholar
  51. Lösel, F., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Direct protective and buffering protective factors in the development of youth violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43 (2S1), 8 – 23.Google Scholar
  52. Lösel, F., & Köferl, P. (1989). Evaluation research on correctional treatment in West Germany: A meta-analysis. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behavior and the justice system (pp. 334 – 355). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Lösel, F., & Nowack, W. (1987). Evaluationsforschung. In J. Schultz-Gambard (Hrsg.), Angewandte Sozialpsychologie (S. 57 – 87). München: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  54. Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2017). Treatment of sexual offenders: Concepts and empirical evaluations. In T. Sanders (Ed.), The Oxford handbook on sex offences and sex offenders (pp. 392 – 414). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lösel, F., Schmucker, M., Plankensteiner, B., & Weiss, M. (2006). Bestandsaufnahme und Evaluation der Elternbildung. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend.Google Scholar
  56. Lösel, F., Stemmler, M., & Bender, D. (2013). Long-term evaluation of a bimodal universal prevention program: Effects from kindergarten to adolescence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 429 – 449.Google Scholar
  57. Maguire, M., Grubin, D., Lösel, F., & Raynor, P. (2010). ‚What works‘ and the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel: Taking stock from an inside perspective. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10, 37 – 58.Google Scholar
  58. Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 462 – 480.Google Scholar
  59. Mihalic, S. H., & Elliott, D. S. (2015). Evidence-based programs registry: Blueprints for healthy youth development. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 124 – 131.Google Scholar
  60. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81 – 97.Google Scholar
  61. Nowak, A. E., & Heinrichs, N. (2008). A comprehensive meta-analysis of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling: Effectiveness and moderating variables. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, 114 – 144.Google Scholar
  62. Ogden T., & Amlund Hagen, K. (2006). Multisystemic therapy of serious behaviour problems in youth: Sustainability of therapy effectiveness two years after intake. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11, 142 – 149.Google Scholar
  63. Ogden, T., & Fixsen, D. (2014). Implementation Science: A brief overview and a look ahead. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222, 4 – 11.Google Scholar
  64. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238 – 1244.Google Scholar
  65. Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H. J., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Arcoleo, K. J., Anson, E. A., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., Henderson Jr., C. R., Bondy, J., & Stevenson, A. J. (2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on maternal life course and government spending follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 Years. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 419 – 424.Google Scholar
  66. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 4716-3 – 4716-8.Google Scholar
  67. Petrosino, A., & Soydan, H. (2005). The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of xperimental Criminology, 1, 435 – 50.Google Scholar
  68. Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2013). The monetary costs of crime to middle adulthood: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 53 – 74.Google Scholar
  69. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical evidence of Gotttfredson and Hirschi’s theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931 – 964.Google Scholar
  71. Sanders, M. R. (2015). Management of conflict of interest in psychosocial research on parenting and family interventions. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 832 – 841.Google Scholar
  72. Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Cassandra, L., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014). The Triple P Positive Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 337 – 357.Google Scholar
  73. Sanders, M. R., Markie-Dadds, C., Bor, W., & Tully, L. A. (2000). The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A comparison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed behavioral family intervention for parents of children with early onset conduct problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 624 – 640.Google Scholar
  74. Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Cassandra, L., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014). The Triple P Positive Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 337 – 357.Google Scholar
  75. Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2011). Meta-analysis as a method of systematic reviews. In D. Gadd, S. Karstedt & S. F. Messner (Eds.), The Sage handbook of criminological research methods (pp. 425 – 443). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 597 – 630.Google Scholar
  77. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  78. Shaffer, D. K. & Pratt, T. C. (2009). Meta-analysis, moderators, and treatment effectiveness: The importance of digging deeper for evidence of program integrity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 101 – 119.Google Scholar
  79. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G., Woods, D. J., Bennett, S., Inkpen, N., Newbury- Birch, D., Rossner, M., Angel, C., Mearns, M., & Slothower, M. (2015). Twelve experiments in restorative justice: the Jerry Lee program of randomized trials of restorative justice conferences. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 501 – 540.Google Scholar
  81. Sundell, K., Hansson, K., Löfholm, C. A., Olsson, T., Gustle, L. H., & Kadesjö, C. (2008). Multisystemic therapy and traditional services for antisocial adolescents in Sweden: Results from a randomized controlled trial after six months. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 550 – 560.Google Scholar
  82. Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2016). Policing. In D. Weisburd, D. P. Farrington & C. Gill (Eds.), What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews (pp. 137 – 168). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  83. The Steering Group of the Campbell Collaboration (2016). Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines. Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 1. DOI: 10.4073/ cpg.2016.1.Google Scholar
  84. Tremblay, R. E., Pagani-Kurtz, L., Vitaro, F, Masse, L. C., & Pihl, R. O. (1995). A bimodal preventive intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact through mid-adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 560 – 568.Google Scholar
  85. Valentine, J. C., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., González Castro, F., Collins, L. M., Flay, B. R., Kellam, S., Moscicki, E. K., & Schinke, S. P. (2011). Replication in prevention science. Prevention Science, 12, 103 – 117.Google Scholar
  86. Van der Stouwe, T., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J., Dekovic, M., & van der Laan, P. H. (2014). The effectiveness of Multisystemic Therapy (MST): a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 43, 468 – 481.Google Scholar
  87. Walters, G. D. (2016). Are behavioral measures of self-control and the Grasmick self-control scale measuring the same construct? A meta-analysis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 151 – 167.Google Scholar
  88. Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: Challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 209 – 227.Google Scholar
  89. Weisburd, D., Lum, C., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50 – 70.Google Scholar
  90. Weisburd, D., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). How well do criminologists explain crime? Statistical modeling in published studies. Crime and Justice, 37, 453 – 502.Google Scholar
  91. Weisburd, D., Telep, C., Hinkle, J., & Eck, J. (2008). The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2008:14,  https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2008.14.
  92. Weiss, M., Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2015). Meta-Analyse zur Wirkung familien-bezogener Präventionsmaßnahmen in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Pychotherapie, 44, 27 – 44.Google Scholar
  93. Weisz, J. R., Donenberg, G. R., Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (1995). Bridging the gap between laboratory and clinic in child and adolescent psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 688 – 701.Google Scholar
  94. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Public area CCTV and crime prevention: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 26, 716 – 745.Google Scholar
  95. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Monetary value of early developmental crime prevention and it policy relevance. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 673 – 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ErlangenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations