Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36164649›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental criminology2022

The impact of modes of administration on self-reports of offending: evidence from a methodological experiment with university students.

Hugo S Gomes, David P Farrington, Marvin D Krohn, Ana Cunha, Julia Jurdi, Bárbara Sousa, Diogo Morgado, Joseph Hoft, Elizabeth Hartsell, Leigh Kassem and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental criminology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Hugo S GomesPsychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7778-6409
David P FarringtonInstitute of Criminology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Marvin D KrohnSociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.
Ana CunhaPsychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Julia JurdiPsychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Bárbara SousaPsychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3450-4744
Diogo MorgadoPsychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Joseph HoftUniversity of Lynchburg, Lynchburg, VA USA.
Elizabeth HartsellSam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX USA.
Leigh KassemSociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.
Ângela MaiaPsychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Current knowledge about the causes of offending behavior is heavily reliant on self-reports of offending (SRO). However, methodological research on the impact of modes of administration on SRO is very scarce. Further, the existing evidence conflicts with the general knowledge about responding to sensitive questions. In this study, we aimed to test whether SRO are affected by modes of administration. Methods: We carried out a methodological experiment, with a 2 (interviewer-administered vs. self-administered surveys) × 2 (paper-and-pencil vs. computer- assisted surveys) factorial design. A total of 181 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of these conditions and completed the International Self-Report Delinquency 3 (ISRD3) questionnaire. Results: Findings showed an increased odds of reporting offending behavior in self-administered surveys, compared to face-to-face interviews. Paper-and-pencil and computer-assisted modes resulted in comparable estimates of offending. Conclusions: This experiment provides evidence that SRO provide more accurate estimates of offending behavior using self-administered surveys.

Indexed as

DelinquencyMeasurement errorMode effectsModes of administrationSensitive questionsSurvey methodology

Identifiers

PMID36164649
PMCPMC9491655

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.