Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Methodological quality and the evaluation of anti-crime programs

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The National Research Council (NRC) report is an excellent contribution to knowledge. The main issues arising are: (1) Evaluability: will consideration of this topic mean that few programs are evaluated? (2) Methodological quality: a new scale needs to be developed and used. (3) Effect size: a realistic, easily understandable measure should be used. (4) Benefit:cost ratio: more calculations of this are needed. (5) Observational methods: their usefulness in evaluation compared with experimental and quasi-experimental methods is doubtful in most cases. (6) Attrition: research is needed on how to minimize this. (7) Evaluating area-based programs: more research is needed on how to do this. (8) Theories: theories and programs should inform each other. (9) Generalizability: research is needed on how to achieve this from small-scale demonstration projects to large-scale routine application. (10) Descriptive validity: a checklist of items to be included in research reports should be specified. Some other issues include the need to calculate statistical power, the need for research on case flow problems, the difficulty of identifying the active ingredients of a program, the problem of obtaining access to official data, the desirability of collecting victim survey and self-report data, conflict of interest issues, and the need for more systematic reviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice, vol. 4 (pp. 257–308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2003). Family-based prevention of offending: A meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36, 127–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology 1, 9–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2006). How important is “regression to the mean” in area-based crime prevention research? Crime Prevention and Community Safety 8, 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St. Ledger, R. & West, D. J. (1990). Minimizing attrition in longitudinal research: Methods of tracing and securing cooperation in a 24-year follow-up study. In D. Magnusson & L. Bergman (Eds.), Data quality in longitudinal research (pp. 122–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeber, R. & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.) (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Moher, D., Schulz, K. F. & Altman, D. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 285, 1987–1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2005). Improving evaluation of anticrime programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Painter, K. A. & Farrington, D. P. (2001). The financial benefits of improved street lighting, based on crime reduction. Lighting Research and Technology 33, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, J. P. (2003). Explaining feast or famine in randomized field trials: Medical science and criminology compared. Evaluation Review 27, 290–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UK

    David P. Farrington

Authors
  1. David P. Farrington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David P. Farrington.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farrington, D.P. Methodological quality and the evaluation of anti-crime programs. J Exp Criminol 2, 329–337 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-006-9012-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-006-9012-y

Key words

Search

Navigation