Comparison of national crime surveys must be made very cautiously because of differences in sampling, methodology and content. In this report methodological differences between the United States' National Crime Survey and victimization surveys of other countries are examined and survey estimates of victimization are adjusted. It is found that U.S. rates of assault/threat, robbery, and burglary are not extraordinarily higher than those of other eleven other countries or regions. However, U.S. levels of gun use are much higher and U.S. levels of both gun and non-gun lethal violence (using Killias, 1990) far exceed those of other industrialized societies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BidermanA. D.CantorD. (1984). A Longitudinal Analysis of Bounding, Respondent Conditioning, and Mobility as Sources of Panel Bias in the National Crime Survey, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, 708–713, American Statistical Association.
2.
BidermanA.D.LynchJ.P. (1981). Recency bias in data in self-reported victimization. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section pp. 31–40, American Statistical Association.
3.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (1988). Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1987. Department of Justice; Washington D.C., 15.
4.
BusheryJ.M. (1981). Recall bias for different reference periods in the National Crime Survey. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods pp. 238–243. American Statistical Association.
5.
CantorDavid. (1989). Substantive implications of longitudinal design features: the National Crime Survey as a case study. In Panel Surveys (KasprzykD. et. al, eds.) pp. 25–51. John Wiley & Sons; New York.
6.
CantorDavid (1985). Operational and Substantive Differences in Changing the NCS Reference Period. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section pp. 128–137. American Statistical Association.
7.
DodgeRichard W.(1985). Response to Screening Questions in the National Crime Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice, Statistics Technical Report.
8.
KilliasMartin (1987). New methodological perspectives for victimization surveys: lessons from Switzerland, National Crime Survey. The American Society of Criminology 39th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; November 1987.
9.
KilliasMartin(1990). Gun ownership and violent crime: the Swiss experience in international perspective. Security Journal, 1, 1169–174.
10.
LaVangeLisa M.FolsomRalph E. (1985). Regression Estimates of National Crime Survey Operations Effects: Adjustment for Non-Sampling Bias p. 109–114. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association.
11.
MurphyLinda R.CowanCharles D. (1984). Effects of bounding on telescoping in the National Crime Survey. The National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Volume II: Methodological Studies. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Statistics, Washington D.C.
12.
RomanA.M.SliwaG.A. (1982). Final Report on the Study Examining the Increased Use of Telephone Interviewing in the National Crime Survey (Memorandum dated August 9, 1982). U.S. Bureau of Census; Washington, DC.
13.
SaphireDiane Griffin (1984). Estimation of Victimization Prevalence Using Data From The National Crime Survey. Springer-Verlag; New York.
14.
TurnerAnthony G. (1984). The effect of memory bias on the design of the National Crime Survey. The National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Volume II: Methodological Studies.
15.
van DijkJan J.M.MayhewPatKilliasMartin(1989). First Findings from the 1989 Multinational Victimization Survey. Annual Meeting of the Society of Criminology, Reno, Nevada, November 1989.
16.
van DijkJan J.M.MayhewPatKilliasMartin (1990). Experiences of Crime Across the World: Key Findings of the 1989 International Crime Survey. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers; Deventer, The Netherlands.
