Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/1822/62277 |
Resumo: | Objectives Self-reported offending is one of the primary measurement methods in criminology. In this article, we aimed to systematically review the experimental evidence regarding measurement bias in self-reports of offending. Methods We carried out a systematic search for studies that (a) included a measure of offending, (b) compared self-reported data on offending between different methods, and (c) used an experimental design. Effect sizes were used to summarize the results. Results The 21 pooled experiments provided evidence regarding 18 different types of measurement manipulations which were grouped into three categories, i.e., Modes of administration, Procedures of data collection, and Questionnaire design. An analysis of the effect sizes for each experimental manipulation revealed, on the one hand, that self-reports are reliable across several ways of collecting data and, on the other hand, self-reports are influenced by a wide array of biasing factors. Within these measurement biases, we found that participants' reports of offending are influenced by modes of administration, characteristics of the interviewer, anonymity, setting, bogus pipeline, response format, and size of the questionnaire. Conclusions This review provides evidence that allows us to better understand and improve crime measurements. However, many of the experiments presented in this review are not replicated and additional research is needed to test further aspects of how asking questions may impact participants' answers. |
id |
RCAP_bde547f2984ee6e27b7a95efdbcf9081 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/62277 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experimentsBiasDelinquencyExperimentMeasurementMethodologyModes of administrationOffendingQuestion designSelf-reportsSystematic reviewCiências Sociais::PsicologiaSocial SciencesObjectives Self-reported offending is one of the primary measurement methods in criminology. In this article, we aimed to systematically review the experimental evidence regarding measurement bias in self-reports of offending. Methods We carried out a systematic search for studies that (a) included a measure of offending, (b) compared self-reported data on offending between different methods, and (c) used an experimental design. Effect sizes were used to summarize the results. Results The 21 pooled experiments provided evidence regarding 18 different types of measurement manipulations which were grouped into three categories, i.e., Modes of administration, Procedures of data collection, and Questionnaire design. An analysis of the effect sizes for each experimental manipulation revealed, on the one hand, that self-reports are reliable across several ways of collecting data and, on the other hand, self-reports are influenced by a wide array of biasing factors. Within these measurement biases, we found that participants' reports of offending are influenced by modes of administration, characteristics of the interviewer, anonymity, setting, bogus pipeline, response format, and size of the questionnaire. Conclusions This review provides evidence that allows us to better understand and improve crime measurements. However, many of the experiments presented in this review are not replicated and additional research is needed to test further aspects of how asking questions may impact participants' answers.This study was conducted at the Psychology Research Centre (PSI/01662), School of Psychology, University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (UID/PSI/01662/2019), through the national funds (PIDDAC). The first author was supported by a doctoral grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT - SFRH/BD/122919/2016).SpringerUniversidade do MinhoGomes, Hugo S.Farrington, David P.Maia, ÂngelaKrohn, Marvin D.20192019-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/62277eng1573-375010.1007/s11292-019-09379-winfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-21T11:56:15Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/62277Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T18:45:52.622200Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments |
title |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments |
spellingShingle |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments Gomes, Hugo S. Bias Delinquency Experiment Measurement Methodology Modes of administration Offending Question design Self-reports Systematic review Ciências Sociais::Psicologia Social Sciences |
title_short |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments |
title_full |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments |
title_fullStr |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments |
title_full_unstemmed |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments |
title_sort |
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments |
author |
Gomes, Hugo S. |
author_facet |
Gomes, Hugo S. Farrington, David P. Maia, Ângela Krohn, Marvin D. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Farrington, David P. Maia, Ângela Krohn, Marvin D. |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade do Minho |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Gomes, Hugo S. Farrington, David P. Maia, Ângela Krohn, Marvin D. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Bias Delinquency Experiment Measurement Methodology Modes of administration Offending Question design Self-reports Systematic review Ciências Sociais::Psicologia Social Sciences |
topic |
Bias Delinquency Experiment Measurement Methodology Modes of administration Offending Question design Self-reports Systematic review Ciências Sociais::Psicologia Social Sciences |
description |
Objectives Self-reported offending is one of the primary measurement methods in criminology. In this article, we aimed to systematically review the experimental evidence regarding measurement bias in self-reports of offending. Methods We carried out a systematic search for studies that (a) included a measure of offending, (b) compared self-reported data on offending between different methods, and (c) used an experimental design. Effect sizes were used to summarize the results. Results The 21 pooled experiments provided evidence regarding 18 different types of measurement manipulations which were grouped into three categories, i.e., Modes of administration, Procedures of data collection, and Questionnaire design. An analysis of the effect sizes for each experimental manipulation revealed, on the one hand, that self-reports are reliable across several ways of collecting data and, on the other hand, self-reports are influenced by a wide array of biasing factors. Within these measurement biases, we found that participants' reports of offending are influenced by modes of administration, characteristics of the interviewer, anonymity, setting, bogus pipeline, response format, and size of the questionnaire. Conclusions This review provides evidence that allows us to better understand and improve crime measurements. However, many of the experiments presented in this review are not replicated and additional research is needed to test further aspects of how asking questions may impact participants' answers. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019 2019-01-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/1822/62277 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/1822/62277 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
1573-3750 10.1007/s11292-019-09379-w |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799132212841414656 |