Erratum
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370812469438 |
| Published date | 01 January 2013 |
| Date | 01 January 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Erratum |
European Journal of Criminology
10(1) 133
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370812469438
euc.sagepub.com
Erratum
In “Beijers et al., ‘Man’s best possession’: Period effects in the association between
marriage and offending 9(4) 425–441, DOI: 10.1177/1477370812448330,” the following
errors have been identified:
Page 434:
“This showed that the period 1971–97 differed significantly from 1938–70
(ROR = 1.30, CI95 = 1.02–1.65).” should read: “This indicated that the risk decrease
is sizeably larger in the period 1971–97 than in 1938-70, although not significantly so
(ROR = 1.83, CI95 = 0.62–5.37).”
“the difference between the two odds ratios was again significant (ROR = 1.40, CI95
= 1.11–1.77).” should read: “the difference between the two odds ratios was again
not significant, but large and in the same direction as predicted by our hypothesis
(ROR = 2. 14, CI95 = 0.75–6.13).”
Page 437:
“ROR cohort 1 − cohort 2 = 1.14 (CI95 = 0.92–1.40)” should read: “ROR cohort 1 −
cohort 2 = 1.34 (CI95 = 0.53–3.40).”
“For men having committed five or more offences before the first marriage, we did
find a significant difference between odds ratios, but it was in the reverse direction:
ORcohort 1 = 5.68 (CI95 = 1.52–21.21), ORcohort 2 = 2.44 (CI95 = 1.69–3.52), ROR
cohort 1− cohort 2 = 1.44 (CI95 = 1.07–1.95).” should read: “For men having committed
five or more offences before the first marriage, we again didn’t find a significant difference
between odds ratios, with the ROR even indicating a difference in the reverse direction:
ORcohort 1 = 5.68 (CI95 = 1.52–21.21), ORcohort 2 = 2.44 (CI95 = 1.69–3.52), ROR
cohort 1− cohort 2 = 2.33 (CI95 = 0.59–9.14).”
469438EUC10110.1177/1477370812469438European Journal of CriminologyErratum
2013
To continue reading
Request your trial