دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 38554
عنوان فارسی مقاله

ارزیابی آزمون و بازآزمون از ابزار بزهکاری خود گزارش شده بین المللی

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
38554 2000 13 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
A test-retest reliability assessment of the international self-report delinquency instrument
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 28, Issue 4, July–August 2000, Pages 283–295

کلمات کلیدی
- ارزیابی آزمون و بازآزمون - بزهکاری خود گزارش شده بین المللی
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله ارزیابی آزمون و بازآزمون از ابزار بزهکاری خود گزارش شده بین المللی

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract This article reports the findings from a self-administered test-retest study of the International Self-Report Delinquency (ISRD) instrument, which was developed by criminologists from fifteen Western countries a decade ago and has been widely used since. Despite its popularity, a recent Dutch study challenged its over-time reliability. This study found that the instrument, when self-administered among college students in Boston and San Diego (N = 147), produced consistent results. The consistency between Time One and Time Two in response to the prevalence question (i.e., “Have you ever … ?”) in all recorded offenses ranged from a high of 100 percent to a low of 85 percent. The observed variations (i.e., a yes answer at Time One and no at Time Two, or vice-versa) in most cases were found to be insignificant. Alcohol and drug questions had the highest reliability over time. Limitations and implications of the findings and suggestions for future research were discussed

مقدمه انگلیسی

Introduction Cross-national studies on crime and delinquency are steadily increasing, and for many good reasons. By comparing the extent, nature, and development of crime and criminality in industrialized countries, policymakers can acquire more insight into how differences in criminal involvement are related to different social and cultural contexts, and learn about policies that are successful in one country but ineffective in another. The Council of Europe is such an example, where researchers and policymakers from more than twenty-five countries meet to compare research results and to evaluate different policy measures (Junger-Tas, 1994). Cross-national studies are difficult to conduct due to a lack of uniform definitions of criminal acts, common instruments, or common methodologies (Junger-Tas, Klein, & Zhang, 1991). Countries differ not only in ways they organize police forces and courts and the way they define legal categories, but also in ways police and judicial statistics are collected and presented (Vetere & Newman, 1977). Many efforts to create uniformity, including those sponsored by the United Nations, have run into major problems (Pease & Hukkila, 1990). Despite these obstacles, there have been many studies comparing official statistics (Lynch, 1995). In contrast, cross-national studies based on self-report data have been rare, in spite of the many strengths of this data-gathering method. In the past decade or so, researchers from many western countries have made significant efforts to overcome definitional, methodological, as well as logistical difficulties to engage in cross-national studies on crime and delinquency. The development of the International Self-Report Delinquency (ISRD) instrument and its subsequent adoption by researchers in many Western countries, represent a major methodological advance in the application of the self-report method. This present study evaluated this widely adopted self-report instrument and examined some of the basic issues about the methodology itself, which is most often taken for granted in day-to-day research activities. This article seeks to contribute to the discussion of how self-report data on crime and delinquency is gathered and analyzed, and whether the method can be employed reliably to uncover delinquency involvement among youths in cross-national studies. Background During a 1988 NATO workshop in the Netherlands, the idea of developing a large-scale International Self-Report Delinquency (ISRD) instrument was proposed in response to the need to gather and compare self-report data on crime and social reactions in different countries Klein 1989 and Klein & Zhang 1991. At the NATO workshop, researchers from fifteen industrialized nations worked intensively to resolve many technical and policy-relevant issues of developing a suitable cross-national instrument that would avoid the many problems of using data of widely different content and quality from officia(1) to examine the feasibility of conducting cross-national self-report delinquency research using a standardized questionnaire, (2) to explore cross-national variability in patterns and correlates of self-reported delinquent behavior, (3) to measure the relative rank-ordering of prevalence of different types of youthful misbehavior in industrialized countries, and (4) to contribute to methodological development of the self-report method. The ISRD instrument was born out of compromises among the participants of the workshop, especially between U.S. participants and the European ones (Junger-Tas, 1994). Certain acts are considered illegal in the U.S. because of different social contexts, but not so in Europe (such as alcohol use and purchase) or are not prosecuted (such as marijuana) (Junger-Tas et al., 1994). After several workshops and pilot studies, the ISRD project expanded to include more researchers who conducted surveys using the instrument in 1990, 1991, and 1992 in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, North Ireland, England and Wales, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, New Zealand, and the United States. In their cross-national comparison of ISRD studies, Junger-Tas, Klein, and Zhang (1991) found that “the core ISRD worked well, even in different countries with very different populations: schools (Italy), institutionalized youths (California), fairly delinquent members of a youth club (Nebraska), and random samples of 14–21-year olds (Netherlands and Germany)” (p. 86). The results from these studies were published in Delinquent Behavior Among Young People in the Western World (Junger-Tas et al., 1994). This was the first major attempt to collect comparable data on youth crime in Western countries based on the “most carefully devised instrument yet available, the form developed for and used in the National Youth Survey in the United States” ( Klein, 1994, p. 383). 1 The findings revealed three general patterns: (1) there was a great deal of similarity in rates of delinquent behavior in the countries that participated in the ISRD survey, and in the nature of the offenses that were most frequently committed; (2) self-report measures were fairly robust; and (3) social bonding variables (e.g., attachment to parents and school) appeared to be consistent correlates of self-reported delinquency ( Junger-Tas et al., 1994, p. 378–379). Structure of the ISRD instrument The instrument contains a set of core questions, essentially covering five domains: (1) prevalence and frequency of delinquent behavior, (2) circumstances of the act, (3) social reactions to delinquency, (4) social background variables, and (5) theoretical variables. Such a design allows instrument adopters the flexibility of adding other measures important to their regional issues (Junger-Tas et al., 1994, p. 8). There are a total of forty-four delinquency measures grouped in five categories. The first group contains questions on problem behaviors (i.e., status offenses and minor infractions); the second group pertains to vandalism; the third contains various kinds of theft behaviors; the fourth asks questions about violent and aggressive behavior; and the fifth group contains questions on alcohol and drug use. A set of filtering questions is put forth before the details of specific delinquent acts are probed, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. An example of International Self-Report Delinquency filtering questions Many young people do things that are not usually permitted. We would like to know if you have done some of these things. Remember that all your answers are confidential and no one except the researchers will ever see them. Now I will read to you a number of activities and you can tell me then if you Full-size image (<1 K) did these things. Yes or no? (1) no (2) yes 010. Did you ever stay away from school for at least a whole day without a legitimate excuse? (1) no (2) yes 020. Did you ever run away from home to stay somewhere else for one or more nights without your parents' or guardian's permission? (1) no (2) yes 040. Did you ever travel on a bus without paying? (1) no (2) yes 060. Did you ever drive a car, a motorcycle, or a moped without a license or insurance? (1) no (2) yes 070. Did you ever write or spray graffiti on walls, buses, bus seats, shelters,or the like? Table options Following the filtering questions, more specific questions are prompted to gather information on the frequency of the acts, the most recent act, and its circumstances, as shown in Table 2. Table 2. An example of International Self-Report Delinquency detailed questions following the filtering questions You mentioned staying away from school for at least a whole day, without a legitimate excuse. 011. At what age did you do it for the first time? ___ years old 012. Did the police ever find out that you did it? (1) no (2) yes (3) don't know 013. Did you do it during this last year? (1) no → next specific subject (2) yes → How often this last year? ___ number of times 014. Speaking about the last time, how many days did you stay away? ___ number of days 016. Where did you spend most of the time? (1) at home or the place you live, or within a ten minute walk from your home or the place you live (2) at a shopping center/shopping mall (3) downtown or in the city center (4) somewhere else, namely: __________________________________ 017. Did you do this alone or with others? (1) alone (2) with (approximately) ___ others 018. Were you caught? (1) no ( ) yes → by whom? (2) parents (6) accidental witness(es) (3) store staff (7) police (4) teachers/school staff (8) other namely: __________ (5) public transport staff 019. What happened to you when you were caught? __________________________________________________ ○ Does not apply (was never caught)

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.