The Impact of Questionnaire Design on Prevalence and Incidence Rates of Self-Reported Delinquency

Abstract

Based on two samples of juveniles (total n = 1,629), this experimental study explores effects of modifying the design (not the wording) of a self-report questionnaire on prevalences and incidences of delinquency - the core instrument of the second International Self-Report Delinquency (ISRD-2) study. Research questions are: Do rates of self-reported delinquency differ by questionnaire design? Are there differences in item nonresponse? Do these effects differ by person characteristics, especially self-control? Do effect sizes of predictors of offending differ by questionnaire design? Omitting follow-up questions and reversing the response categories no/yes generates higher levels of self-reported delinquency as to minor offenses. Item nonresponse is affected by the design of filter questions and by person characteristics (e.g., low self-control) correlating with delinquency. Although the modifications reduce underreporting, effects of predictors on delinquency do not differ substantially. Nevertheless, more variance is explained using the modified version data.

Keywords

self-report question design branching underreporting item nonresponse missing data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berg

M. T.

Stewart

E. A.

Schreck

C. J.

Simons

R. L.

(2012). The victim-offender overlap in context: Examining the role of neighborhood street culture. Criminology, 50(2), 359-390.

Boyce

Torsheim

Currie

Zambon

(2006). The Family Affluence Scale as a measure of national wealth: Validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Social Indicators Research, 78, 473-487.

Cameron

A. C.

Trivedi

P. K.

(1998). Regression analysis of count data. New York: Cambridge University Press

Enzmann

(2010). Germany. In Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczyńska

(Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond: Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 47-64). New York: Springer.

Enzmann

Wetzels

(2003). Ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency: The role of violence legitimizing norms of masculinity. In Dünkel

Drenkhahn

(Eds.), Youth violence: New patterns and local responses—experiences in East and West (pp. 316-345). Mönchengladbach, Germany: Forum.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

Hilbe

J. M.

(2005). -hnblogit-: Stata module to estimate negative binomial-logit hurdle regression. Statistical Software Components (Boston College Department of Economics). Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456401.html

Hindelang

M. J.

Hirschi

Weis

J. G.

(1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hippler

H.- J.

Schwarz

Noelle-Neumann

(1989). Response order effects in dichotomous questions: The impact of administration mode (ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht No. 1989/17). Mannheim, Germany: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-67009

10.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 311-327.

11.

Hirschi

Hindelang

M. J.

Weis

J. G.

(1980). The status of self-report measures. In Klein

M. W.

Teilmann

K. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice evaluation (pp. 473-488). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

12.

Huizinga

Elliott

D. S.

(1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquent measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2(4), 293-327.

13.

ISRD-2 Working Group. (2005). Questionnaire ISRD-2: Standard student questionnaire. Boston: European Society of Criminology.

14.

Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

(1999). The self-report methodology in crime research. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 25, 291-367.

15.

Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

(2012). Introduction to the International Self-Report Study of Delinquency (ISRD-2). In Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczyńska

(Eds.), The many faces of youth crime: Contrasting theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency across countries and cultures (pp. 3-20). New York: Springer.

16.

Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczyńska

(2010). History and design of the ISRD studies. In Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczyńska

(Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond. Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 1-11). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

17.

Kivivuori

(2011). Discovery of hidden crime: Self-report delinquency surveys in criminal policy context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

18.

Krosnick

J. A.

(1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.

19.

Krosnick

J. A.

Presser

(2010). Question and questionnaire design. In Marsden

P. V.

Wright

J. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 263-313). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

20.

Lohr

S. L.

(1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.

21.

Lucia

Herrmann

Killias

(2007). How important are interview methods and questionnaire designs on 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.

22.

MacDonald

J. M.

Morral

Piquero

A. R.

(2011). Socially desirable response bias in criminology: An example of its effect in testing the effects of self-control. In MacDonald

J. M.

(Ed.), Measuring crime & criminality. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 17, pp. 21-36). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

23.

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

(2012a). Methodology and design of the ISRD-2 study. In Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczyńska

(Eds.), The many faces of youth crime: Contrasting theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency across countries and cultures (pp. 21-65). New York: Springer.

24.

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

(2012b). The generalizability of self-control theory. In Junger-Tas

Haen Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczyńska

(Eds.), The many faces of youth crime: Contrasting theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency across countries and Cultures (pp. 285-325, E1-E7). New York: Springer.

25.

McDowell

(2003). From the help-desk: Hurdle models. The Stata Journal, 3, 178-184.

26.

Nye

F. I.

Short

J. F.

(1957). Scaling delinquent behavior. American Sociological Review, 22(3), 326-331.

27.

Pauwels

Svensson

(2008). How serious is the problem of item nonresponse in delinquency scales and aetiological variables? A cross-national inquiry into two classroom PAPI self-report studies in Antwerp and Halmstad. European Journal of Criminology, 5(3), 289-308.

28.

Piquero

A. R.

MacIntosh

Hickman

(2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale. Criminology, 38, 897-929.

29.

Redline

C. D.

Dillman

D. A.

(2002). The influence of alternative visual designs on respondents’ performance with branching instructions in self-administered questionnaires. In Groves

R. M.

Dillman

Eltinge

Little

(Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 179-193). New York: Wiley.

30.

Schaeffer

N. C.

Presser

(2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 65-88.

31.

Schwarz

(1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93-105.

32.

Schwarz

Sudman

(1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer.

33.

Short

J. F.

Nye

F. I.

(1957). Reported behavior as a criterion of deviant behavior. Social Problems, 5(3), 207-213.

34.

Steketee

(2012). The lifestyles of youth and their peers. In Junger-Tas

Haen Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczyńska

(Eds.), The many faces of youth crime: Contrasting theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency across countries and cultures (pp. 237-255). New York: Springer.

35.

Thornberry

T. P.

Krohn

M. D.

(2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In Duffee

R. D.

Crutchfield

R. D.

Mastrofski

Mazerolle

(Eds.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (pp. 33-83). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

36.

Toepoel

Das

van Soest

(2009). Design of web questionnaires: The effects of the number of items per screen. Field Methods, 21(2), 200-213.

37.

Tourangeau

Rips

L. J.

Rasinski

(2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Tourangeau

Yan

(2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859-883.

39.

Wang

Fan

(2004). Missing data in disguise and implications for survey data analysis. Field Methods, 16(3), 332-351.

40.

Watkins

A. M.

Melde

(2007). The effect of self-control on unit and item nonresponse in an adolescent sample. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 267-294.

41.

Wetzels

Enzmann

Mecklenburg

Pfeiffer

(2001). Jugend und gewalt. Eine repräsentative dunkelfeldanalyse in München und acht weiteren deutschen Städten [Youth and violence: Analyses of representative self-report studies in Munich and additional eight German cities]. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

42.

Wilmers

Enzmann

Schaefer

Herbers

Greve

Wetzels

(2002). Jugendliche in Deutschland zur jahrtausendwende: Gefährlich oder gefährdet? [Juveniles in Germany at the turn of the millennium: Dangerous or endangered?] Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.