The validity of criminality data derived from personal interviews
Expert InsightsPublished 1977
Information gathered from personal interviews with 49 incarcerated felons is used to assess the validity of the interview data by comparing the offender's self-reported criminal activity with arrests and convictions in official records data. The validity is categorized by different types of crime, criminal career periods (juvenile, young adult, and adult), and the gender of the interviewer. It is found that respondents reported approximately 50 percent of their arrests or convictions during the interviews; 75 percent of juvenile events are included. Surprisingly, there was less validity in reporting less serious offenses and crimes taking place most recent to the time of current incarceration. The gender of the interviewer appeared to make no difference.
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Web Only
- Year: 1977
- Pages: 28
- Document Number: P-5890
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.