Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Crime & Delinquency
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0011128707307223v1
55/3/472    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bosick, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Operationalizing Crime Over the Life Course

Stacey J. Bosick*

Harvard University

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bosick{at}fas.harvard.edu.


   Abstract
Pointing to declines in self-reported criminality across waves of the National Youth Survey, several researchers have concluded that "testing effects" may render longitudinal self-report data unreliable. This article argues that the issue remains unsettled on two accounts. First, alternative explanations for the declines have not been fully addressed. These include matters of scale construction, item-specific age–crime curves, and selective attrition. Second, previous research tends to conflate two types of testing effects explanations: panel fatigue and changing content validity. Each of these five explanations has different implications and is explored in the present article. Through this series of analyses, the author concludes that the declines stem from item-specific issues, namely, the inclusion of early-peaking offenses in the scales and the changing content validity of some survey items. Implications are discussed with respect to how criminologists operationalize key constructs such as crime and deviance and how we study the age–crime relationship.

First published on February 26, 2008, doi:10.1177/0011128707307223

Crime & Delinquency 2009;55:472.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?