This article investigates the discrepancy between victimization surveys and police data, or the extent to which crimes that are reported in one source can be traced back to the other. We used traditional reverse and forward record checks to investigate reciprocal validity. In addition, we designed a new, more comprehensive measure that is more optimally geared towards calculating the total discrepancy between the two data sources. We used victimization surveys and police data from Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Results of the reverse record check showed that in 48% of cases a survey respondent did not mention victimization, even though it appeared in police registration. Results of the forward record check showed that only 35% of reported victimization in the survey could be traced back to police data within the reference period. Forward telescoping occurred in 28% of cases. In 7% of cases, respondents reported victimization experienced by household members. Furthermore, 29% of victimization reported to the police according to survey respondents could not be traced back to police data. Finally, we calculated the total discrepancy between the police data and the victimization survey and found that reports of 18% of respondents in the victimization survey were not congruent with the police data.
AverdijkM (2010) Individuals’ victimization patterns over time. Doctoral dissertation, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
2.
BidermanADLynchJP (1981) Recency bias in data on self-reported victimization. In: Proceedings of the social statistical section of the American Statistical Association, pp. 31–40.
3.
BidermanADJohnsonLAMcIntyreJWeirAW (1967) Report on a pilot study in the District of Columbia on victimization and attitudes toward law enforcement. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
4.
BradburnNMRipsLJShevellSK (1987) Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science236: 157–161.
5.
BusheryJM (1981) Recall biases for different reference periods in the National Crime Survey. In: Proceedings of the section on survey research methods of the American Statistical Association, pp. 238–243.
6.
CantorDLynchJP (2000) Self-report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization. Criminal Justice4: 85–138.
7.
CantorDLynchJP (2007) Addressing the challenge of costs and error in victimization surveys: The potential of new technologies and methods. In: HoughMMaxfieldM (eds) Surveying Crime in the 21st Century. Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the British Crime Survey. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 281–302.
8.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2009). Integrale Veiligheidsmonitor 2008. Tabellenrapport [Integral safety-monitor 2008. Tables report]. The Hague: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
9.
DodgeRW (1981) The Washington, D.C. Recall Study. In: LehnenRGSkoganWG (eds) The National Crime Survey: Working Papers. Volume I: Current and Historical Perspectives. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, pp. 12–15.
EnnisPH (1967) Criminal victimization in the United States. A report of a National Survey. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Field Surveys II. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
12.
FiselierJ (1978) Slachtoffers van Delicten. Een Onderzoek naar Verborgen Criminaliteit. Utrecht: Ars Aequi Libri.
13.
GennHG (1976) Findings of a pilot survey of victimization in England. Victimology1(2): 253–262.
14.
GoudriaanH (2006) Reporting crime. Effects of social context on the decision of victims to notify the police. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
15.
HoughMMaxfieldMMorrisBSimmonsJ (2007) The British Crime Survey over 25 years: Progress, problems, and prospects. In: HoughMMaxfieldM (eds) Surveying Crime in the 21st Century. Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the British Crime Survey. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 7–31.
16.
Junger-TasJHaen MarshallI (1999) The self-report methodology in crime research. In: TonryM (ed.) Crime and Justice. A Review of Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, pp. 291–367.
17.
KilpatrickDGBeattyDSmith HowleyS (1998) The Rights of Crime Victims – Does Legal Protection Make a Difference?Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
18.
KossMPGidyczCAWisniewskiN (1987) The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology55: 162–170.
19.
LohrSSunS (1998) Probability of victimization over time: Results from the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey. In: Proceedings of Statistics Canada symposium 98. Longitudinal analysis for complex surveys, pp. 161–166.
20.
MurphyLRDodgeRW (1981) The Baltimore Recall Study. In: LehnenRGSkoganWG (eds) The National Crime Survey: Working Papers. Volume I: Current and Historical Perspectives. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, pp. 16–21.
21.
PenickBKEOwensMEB (1976) Surveying Crime. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
22.
RandMR (2007) The National Crime Victimization Survey at 34: Looking back and looking ahead. In: HoughMMaxfieldM (eds) Surveying Crime in the 21st Century. Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the British Crime Survey. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 145–163.
23.
ReissAJJrRothJA (eds) (1993) Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24.
ScherpenzeelA (1992) Response Effecten in Slachtoffer-enquêtes. Effecten van Vraagformulering en Dataverzamelingsmethode [Response effects in victimization surveys. Effects of question formulation and data collection method]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie4: 296–305.
25.
SchneiderALGriffithWRSumiDHBurcartJM (1978) Portland Forward Records Check of Crime Victims. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
26.
SkoganWG (1975) Measurement problems in official and survey crime rates. Journal of Criminal Justice3: 17–32.
SudmanSBradburnNMSchwarzN (1996) Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
TurnerA (1972) San Jose Methods Test of Known Crime Victims. Statistics Technical Report No. 1. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
30.
TurnerAG (1984) The effect of memory bias on the design of the National Crime Survey. In: LehnenRGSkoganWG (eds) The National Crime Survey: Working Papers. Volume II: Methodological Studies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, pp. 80–82.
31.
Van DijkJJM (1992) Als de Dag van Gisteren. Over de Betrouwbaarheid van het Slachtofferverhaal. Justitiële Verkenningen18: 47–65.
32.
WittebroodK (2006) Slachtoffers van Criminaliteit: Feiten en Achtergronden. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
33.
YbarraLMRLohrSL (2000) Effects of Attrition in the National Crime Victimization Survey. In: Proceedings of the survey research methods section, American Statistical Association, pp. 870–874.
