Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Item count technique” or “Unmatched count technique” are methods to reduce response bias, in which participants are randomly divided into at least two groups. The control group receives a list of questions without the sensitive item while the experimental group receives the same questions including the sensitive item. The prevalence estimate is calculated by the subtraction of the mean sum of the control group from the mean sum of the experimental group (Wolter and Laier 2014).
“Random response technique” is a method to reduce response bias, in which participants are presented with a pair of questions, one sensitive and one innocuous. Participants use a randomization device, such as a dice or a coin, to either give a predetermined answer (e.g., yes or no) or to answer the sensitive question truthfully. A prevalence estimation is possible from knowing the probability of the predetermined outcome (Wolter and Preisendörfer 2013).
References
Auty, K. M., Farrington, D. P., & Coid, J. W. (2015). The validity of self-reported convictions in a community sample: findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. European Journal of Criminology, 12, 562–580.
Baier, D. (2017). Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil self-report delinquency surveys: results of an experimental study. European Journal of Criminology, 15, 385–402.
Baly, M. W., & Cornell, D. G. (2011). Effects of an educational video on the measurement of bullying by self-report. Journal of School Violence, 10, 221–238.
Beatty, J. R., Chase, S. K., & Ondersma, S. J. (2014). A randomized study of the effect of anonymity, quasi-anonymity, and certificates of confidentiality on postpartum women’s disclosure of sensitive information. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 134, 280–284.
Beebe, T. J., Harrison, P. A., Mcrae, J. A., Anderson, R. E., & Fulkerson, J. A. (1998). An evaluation of computer-assisted self-interviews in a school setting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 623–632.
Beebe, T. J., Harrison, P. A., Park, E., McRae, J. A., Jr., & Evans, J. (2006). The effects of data collection mode and disclosure on adolescent reporting of health behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 476–488.
Bender, R., Friede, T., Koch, A., Kuss, O., Schlattmann, P., Schwarzer, G., & Skipka, G. (2018). Methods for evidence synthesis in the case of very few studies. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 382–392.
Biglan, M., Gilpin, E. A., Rohrbach, L. A., & Pierce, J. P. (2004). Is there a simple correction factor for comparing adolescent tobacco-use estimates from school-and home-based surveys? Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 6, 427–437.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis, version 3. Englewood: Biostat.
Brener, N. D., Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Grunbaum, J. A., Gross, L. A., Kyle, T. M., & Ross, J. G. (2006). The association of survey setting and mode with self-reported health risk behaviors among high school students. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 354–374.
Chaiken, J. M., & Chaiken, M. R. (1982). Varieties of criminal behavior. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Chan, J. H., Myron, R., & Crawshaw, M. (2005). The efficacy of non-anonymous measures of bullying. School Psychology International, 26, 443–458.
Clark, J. P., & Tifft, L. L. (1966). Polygraph and interview validation of self-reported deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 31, 516–523.
Cops, D., De Boeck, A., & Pleysier, S. (2016). School vs. mail surveys: disentangling selection and measurement effects in self-reported juvenile delinquency. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 92–110.
Cutler, S. F., Wallace, P. G., & Haines, A. P. (1988). Assessing alcohol consumption in general practice patients - a comparison between questionnaire and interview (findings of the Medical Research Council’s general practice research framework study on lifestyle and health). Alcohol and Alcoholism, 23, 441–450.
Dalton, D. R., Wimbush, J. C., & Daily, C. M. (1994). Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Personnel Psychology, 47, 817–829.
Daylor, J. M., Blalock, D. V., Davis, T., Klauberg, W. X., Stuewig, J., & Tangney, J. P. (2019). Who tells the truth? Former inmates’ self-reported arrests vs. official records. Journal of Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.04.002.
Durant, L. E., Carey, M. P., & Schroder, K. E. (2002). Effects of anonymity, gender, and erotophilia on the quality of data obtained from self-reports of socially sensitive behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 439–467.
Eaton, D. K., Brener, N. D., Kann, L., Denniston, M. M., McManus, T., Kyle, T. M., Roberts, A. M., Flint, K. H., & Ross, J. G. (2010). Comparison of paper-and-pencil versus web administration of the youth risk behavior survey (YRBS): risk behavior prevalence estimates. Evaluation Review, 34, 137–153.
Enzmann, D. (2013). The impact of questionnaire design on prevalence and incidence rates of self-reported delinquency: results of an experiment modifying the ISRD-2 questionnaire. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 147–177.
Farrington, D. P. (1973). Self-reports of deviant behavior: predictive and stable? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, 99–110.
Gomes, H. S., Maia, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2018a). Measuring offending: self-reports, official records, systematic observation and experimentation. Crime Psychology Review, 4, 26–44.
Gomes, H. S., Maia, A. & Farrington, D. P. (2018b). Method effects in measuring self-reported offending: an experimental comparison of personal, paper-and-pencil, and computer assisted interviews. (Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Society of criminology, Atlanta, GA).
Gribble, J. N., Rogers, S. M., Miller, H. G., & Turner, C. R. (1998). Measuring AIDS-related behaviors in older populations: methodological issues. Research on Aging, 20, 798–821.
Gribble, J. N., Miller, H. G., Cooley, P. C., Catania, J. A., Pollack, L., & Turner, C. F. (2000). The impact of T-ACASI interviewing on reported drug use among men who have sex with men. Substance Use & Misuse, 35, 869–890.
Grysman, B. & Johnson, C. (2010). Effects of value affirmation on drug use disclosure in patients entering a community mental health center. Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, Long Island, NY.
Hamby, S., Sugarman, D. B., & Boney-McCoy, S. (2006). Does questionnaire format impact reported partner violence rates?: an experimental study. Violence and Victims, 21, 507–518.
Hardt, R. H., & Peterson-Hardt, S. (1977). On determining the quality of the delinquency self-report method. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 14, 247–259.
Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. London: Sage.
Horney, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). An experimental comparison of two self-report methods for measuring lambda. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 102–121.
Huang, F. L., & Cornell, D. G. (2015). The impact of definition and question order on the prevalence of bullying victimization using student self-reports. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1484–1493.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). Self-reported offending: reliability and validity. In G. J. N. Bruinsma & D. L. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 4716–4723). New York: Springer-Verlag.
King, C. A., Hill, R. M., Wynne, H. A., & Cunningham, R. M. (2012). Adolescent suicide risk screening: the effect of communication about type of follow-up on adolescents' screening responses. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 508–515.
Kivivuori, J., Salmi, V., & Walser, S. (2013). Supervision mode effects in computerized delinquency surveys at school: Finnish replication of a Swiss experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 91–107.
Kleck, G., & Roberts, K. (2012). What survey modes are most effective in eliciting self-reports of criminal or delinquent behavior? In L. Gideon (Ed.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (pp. 417–439). New York: Springer.
Knapp, H., & Kirk, S. A. (2003). Using pencil and paper, internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: does methodology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 117–134.
Krohn, M. D., Waldo, G. P., & Chiricos, T. G. (1974). Self-reported delinquency: a comparison of structured interviews and self-administered checklists. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 65, 545–553.
Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Phillips, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., & Bell, K. A. (2013). Explaining systematic bias in self-reported measures: factors that affect the under-and over-reporting of self-reported arrests. Justice Quarterly, 30, 501–528.
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In P. V. Marsden & J. D. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 263–313). Bingley: Emerald.
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Quality and Quantity, 47, 2025–2047.
Kulik, J. A., Stein, K. B., & Sarbin, T. R. (1968). Disclosure of delinquent behavior under conditions of anonymity and nonanonymity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 506–509.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Hipwell, A. E., Stepp, S. D., Pardini, D., & Ahonen, L. (2015). Constancy and change in the prevalence and frequency of offending when based on longitudinal self-reports or official records: comparisons by gender, race, and crime type. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1, 150–168.
Loftus, E. F., & Marburger, W. (1983). Since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, has anyone beaten you up? Improving the accuracy of retrospective reports with landmarkevents. Memory and Cognition, 11, 114–120.
Lucia, S., Herrmann, L., & Killias, M. (2007). How important are interview methods and questionnaire designs in research on self-reported juvenile delinquency? An experimental comparison of Internet vs paper-and-pencil questionnaires and different definitions of the reference period. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 39–64.
Maxfield, M. G., Weiler, B. L., & Widom, C. S. (2000). Comparing self-reports and official records of arrests. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 87–110.
Moskowitz, J. M. (2004). Assessment of cigarette smoking and smoking susceptibility among youth: telephone computer-assisted self-interviews versus computer-assisted telephone interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 565–587.
Nye, F. I., & Short, J. F. (1957). Scaling delinquent behavior. American Sociological Review, 22, 326–331.
Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1691–1708.
Piquero, A. R., Schubert, C. A., & Brame, R. (2014). Comparing official and self-report records of offending across gender and race/ethnicity in a longitudinal study of serious youthful offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 526–556.
Porterfield, A. L. (1943). Delinquency and its outcome in court and college. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 199–208.
Potdar, R., & Koenig, M. A. (2005). Does audio-CASI improve reports of risky behavior? Evidence from a randomized field trial among young urban men in India. Studies in Family Planning, 36, 107–116.
Rehm, J., & Spuhler, T. (1993). Measurement error in alcohol consumption: the Swiss health survey. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 47, S25–S30.
Richman, W., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754–775.
Schore, J., Maynard, R., & Piliavin, I. (1979). The accuracy of self-reported arrest data. Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1981). Effects of three interview factors on the validity of alcohol abusers’ self-reports. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 8, 225–237.
Strang, E., & Peterson, Z. D. (2016). Use of a bogus pipeline to detect men’s underreporting of sexually aggressive behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (in press). https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516681157.
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal justice (pp. 33–84). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Tourangeau, R., & McNeeley, M. E. (2003). Measuring crime and crime victimization: methodological issues. In J. V. Pepper & C. V. Petrie (Eds.), Measurement problems in criminal research: Workshop summary (pp. 10–42). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Trapl, E. S., Taylor, H. G., Colabianchi, N., Litaker, D., & Borawski, E. A. (2013). Value of audio-enhanced handheld computers over paper surveys with adolescents. American Journal of Health Behavior, 37, 62–69.
Turner, C. F., & Miller, H. G. (1997). Monitoring trends in drug use: strategies for the 21st century. Substance Use and Misuse, 32, 2093–2103.
Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867–873.
van De Looij-Jansen, P. M., & De Wilde, E. J. (2008). Comparison of web-based versus paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaire: Effects on health indicators in Dutch adolescents. Health Services Research, 43, 1708–1721.
van de Looij-Jansen, P. M., Goldschmeding, J. E., & de Wilde, E. J. (2006). Comparison of anonymous versus confidential survey procedures: effects on health indicators in Dutch adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 652–658.
Walser, S., & Killias, M. (2012). Who should supervise students during self-report interviews? A controlled experiment on response behavior in online questionnaires. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 17–28.
Wilson, D. B. (2009). Missing a critical piece of the pie: simple document search strategies inadequate for systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 429–440.
Wolter, F., & Laier, B. (2014). The effectiveness of the item count technique in eliciting valid answers to sensitive questions: an evaluation in the context of self-reported delinquency. Survey Research Methods, 8, 153–168.
Wolter, F., & Preisendörfer, P. (2013). Asking sensitive questions: an evaluation of the randomized response technique versus direct questioning using individual validation data. Sociological Methods and Research, 42, 321–353.
Funding
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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gomes, H.S., Farrington, D.P., Maia, Â. et al. Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments. J Exp Criminol 15, 313–339 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09379-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09379-w