The phenomenon of item nonresponse, i.e. missing data, in surveys is well known among methodologists. Item nonresponse is a problem when it is biased to the dependent variables in aetiological research. The occurrence of item nonresponse in self-reported delinquency studies has been associated with the threatening nature of questions about previous delinquent behaviour, but item nonresponse also occurs in scales measuring aetiological variables (theoretical concepts) in aetiological research, and in sociology has also been associated with negative attitudes towards the survey, although evidence from self-reported delinquency studies in support of this concern has not yet been given. The aim of this study is to evaluate the seriousness of the problem of item nonresponse in two independently drawn self-reported delinquency data sets of two classroom delinquency studies conducted among adolescents in Antwerp (Belgium) and Halmstad (Sweden) using paper and pencil interviews (PAPI). We do this by evaluating the non-random character of item nonresponse in scales of delinquency and aetiological variables, by looking at the correlates of item nonresponse and by evaluating the effects of assigning values on the missing data with regard to reliability and correlational validity. The results are rather optimistic about the hypothesized negative effects of item nonresponse.
Assael, H. and Keon, J. (1982) Nonsampling vs. sampling errors in survey research . Journal of Marketing45, 114-23.
2.
Beatty, P. and Herrmann, D. (2002) To answer or not to answer: Decision processes related to survey item nonresponse. In R. M. Groves et al. (eds) Survey nonresponse, 71-86. New York: Wiley.
3.
Billiet, J. (1997) Controlling for measurement error in substantive social surveys: An evaluation of some new developments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Dutch Sociological Association (NSV), Utrecht, 29 May.
4.
Bjarnason, T. (1995) Administration mode bias in a school survey on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use. Addiction90, 555-9.
5.
Cernkovich, S., Giordano, P. and Pugh, M. (1985) Chronic offenders: The missing cases in self-report delinquency research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology76, 705-32.
6.
Converse, J. and Presser, S. (1986) Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Quantitative Applications in Social Science No. 63. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE .
7.
Coxon, A.P.M. (1999) Parallel accounts? Discrepancies between self-report (diary) and recall (questionnaire) measures of the same sexual behaviour. Aids Care11, 222-34.
8.
De Rycke, L., Ackaert, L., Labre, M., Van Hove, G., Castermans, E., Kaesemans, G. and Rogiers, F. (2005) De Kliksons voorbijgeklikt. Reflecties van op de zijlijn (met cd-rom). Leuven: Garant .
9.
Dillman, D.A. (2005) Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field Methods17, 30-52.
10.
Hindelang, M.J., Hirschi, T. and Weis, J.G. (1981) Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
11.
Huisman, J.M.E. (1999) Item nonresponse: Occurrence, causes, and imputation of missing answers to test items. Leiden: DSWO Press.
12.
Huisman, M. and Goudriaan, H. (2001) Handling missing item responses due to item nonresponse and incomplete designs. In J. Bethlehem and S. Van Buuren (eds) Missing values. Proceedings of the tenth symposium on statistical software. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde.
13.
Jenkins, C.R. and Dillman, D. (1997) A theory of self-administered questionnaire design . In L. Lyberg et al. Survey measurement and process quality. New York: Wiley InterScience.
14.
Junger, M. (1989) Validiteit van zelfrapportage van delinquentie bij jongeren uit etnische minderheden. In J. de Jong-Gierveld and J. van der Zouwen (eds) De vragenlijst in het sociaal onderzoek, een confrontatie van onderzoekspraktijk en -methodiek, 153-74. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
15.
Junger-Tas, J. and Haen Marshall, I. (1999) The self-report methodology in crime research. Crime and Justice25, 291-367.
16.
Kalton, G. and Kasprzyk, D. (1982) Imputing for missing survey responses. Proceedings of the survey research methods section, 22-31. Washington, DC : American Statistical Association.
17.
Krosnick, J.A. (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology5, 213-36.
18.
Little, R.J. and Rubin, D.B. (2003) Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd edn. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics . New Jersey: Wiley InterScience .
19.
Loosveldt, G. and Storms, V. (2001) The relevance of respondents' attitudes towards surveys. Paper presented at the 12th International Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse, Oslo, September.
20.
Loosveldt, G. and Storms, V. (2003) Peilen in Vlaanderen. De houding van de Vlaming t.o.v. survey onderzoek. Vlaanderen gepeild!, 347-70. Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
21.
Marker, D. (2002) Improving quality of surveys. Paper presented at the International Conference on Improving Surveys, Copenhagen.
22.
Oberwittler, D. (2004) The need for computer-aided interview techniques in school surveys on self-reported delinquency. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology , Amsterdam, 25-28 August.
23.
Ponsaers, P. and Pauwels, L. (2003) De onderzoekbaarheid van jeugddelinquentie, over de self-report methode. In Vakgroep Strafrecht en Criminologie (ed.) Update in de criminologie, 45-70. Ghent : Ugent.
24.
Riphahn, R.T. and Serfling, O. (2002) Item nonresponse on income and wealth questions . IZA Discussion Paper No. 573. Bonn: IZA.
25.
Rovers, B. (1997) De buurt, een broeinest? Een onderzoek naar de invloed van de woonomgeving op jeugdcriminaliteit. Nijmegen : Ars aequi Libri.
26.
Rubin, D.B. (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys . New York: John Wiley.
Shannon, D. (2006) Chronic offenders or socially disadvantaged youth? Institutionalized males as missing cases in school based delinquency research . Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention7, 78-100.
29.
Sehuman, H. and Presser, S. (1996) Questions and answers in attitude surveys, experiments on question form, wording, and context. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
Stoop, I. (2005) The hunt for the last respondent. The Hague: SCP (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau).
31.
Sudman, S. and Bradburn, N.M. (1982) Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire construction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
32.
Supple A. J., Aguilino, W.S. and Wright, D.L. (1999) Collecting Sensitive Self-report data with Laptop Computers: Impact on the response tendencies of adolescents in a home interview . Journal of Adolescence Research9: 467-488.
33.
Tourangeau, R. and Rasinski, K.A. (1988) Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin103, 299-314.
34.
Traugott, M., Mason, R. and Lesser, V. (2001) The effect of item nonresponse on nonresponse error and inference. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge and R. J. A. Little (eds) Survey nonresponse, 149-61. New York: John Wiley .
35.
Van Kerckvoorde, J. (1995) Een maat voor het kwaad. Leuven : Universitaire Pers Leuven.
36.
Wright, D., Gfroerer, J. and Epstein, J. (1997) The use of external data sources and ratio estimation to improve estimates of hardcore drug use from the NHSD. In L. Harrisson and A. Hughes (eds), The validity of self-reported drug use: Improving the accuracy of survey estimates, 477-97. NIDA Research Monographs 167. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
