The discrepancy between survey-based victim accounts and police reports revisited
| Author | Margit Averdijk,Henk Elffers |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758011432955 |
| Published date | 01 May 2012 |
| Date | 01 May 2012 |
Article
The discrepancy between
survey-based victim
accounts and police
reports revisited
Margit Averdijk
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH), Switzerland and University of Zurich, Switzerland
Henk Elffers
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), The Netherlands
Abstract
This article investigates the discrepancy between victimization surveys and police data, or the
extent to which crimes that are reported in one source can be traced back to the other. We used
traditional reverse and forward record checks to investigate reciprocal validity. In addition, we
designed a new, more comprehensive measure that is more optimally geared towards calculating
the total discrepancy between the two data sources. We used victimization surveys and police data
from Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Results of the reverse record check showed that in 48% of
cases a survey respondent did not mention victimization, even though it appeared in police reg-
istration. Results of the forward record check showed that only 35% of reported victimization in
the survey could be traced back to police data within the reference period. Forward telescoping
occurred in 28% of cases. In 7% of cases, respondents reported victimization experienced by
household members. Furthermore, 29% of victimization reported to the police according to
survey respondents could not be traced back to police data. Finally, we calculated the total dis-
crepancy between the police data and the victimization survey and found that reports of 18% of
respondents in the victimization survey were not congruent with the police data.
Keywords
victimization survey, police data, methodological research
Corresponding author:
Margit Averdijk, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH) and University of Zurich (Criminological Institute); to
be contacted at ETH, Department of Sociology/z-proso, Building RZ, Clausiusstrasse 59, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Email: margit.averdijk@soz.gess.ethz.ch
International Review of Victimology
18(2) 91–107
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758011432955
irv.sagepub.com
91
Criminological and victimological research relies heavily on victimization surveys and police data.
Although both types of data resources have become increasingly commonly used for research, our
knowledge on the pitfalls of these sources is still limited. This is surprising given that data relia-
bility and validity have a great impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from research. It is
therefore important to increase our understanding of these data.
Police data have long beenknown to have methodological problemswhen it comes to measuring
crime. To allowfor an alternative data source that wouldnot have these problems, researchers started
developing victimization surveys in the 1960s and 1970s. But soon, a number ofstudies tested the
discrepancybetween victimization surveysand police data and found that victimization surveys also
suffer from methodological flaws (Dodge, 1981; Fiselier, 1978; Genn, 1976; Murphy and Dodge,
1981; Schneider,et al., 1978; Turner,1972; Van Dijk, 1992). These studies used so-called ‘record
checks’ and ‘forward record checks’in which victim accounts fromvictimization surveys were com-
pared to police reports. Reverse record checks examine whether incidents in police records are also
reported in victimization surveys. Forward record checks investigate whether incidents reported in
victimization surveys can be traced back to police records. Results pointed to major flaws in both
data sources for the measurement of crime.
All known studies on the discrepancy between victimization surveys and police data were con-
ducted in the 1970s. For several reasons, more recentresearch on t his topic is needed. Not only are
methodological issues still unresolved, police registration practices and survey methods have
also changed since the 1970s. For example, police practices regarding the recording of crimes
have undergone significant improvements. In addition, technological devel opments are expected
to have increased the quality of victimization surveys. On the other hand, non-response in sur-
veys has increased (possibly selectively), and the increasing tendency among households to use
mobile phones instead of fixed phone lines makes it more difficult to reach them. It is currently
unclear to what extent these changes have resulted in changes in the congruence between police
data and victimization surveys. This calls for a new wave of research onthe congruence and dis-
crepancies between the two major sources for the measurement of crime.
In order to investigate the discrepancy between victimization surveys and police records, the
current study examines the extent to which crimesthat are reported in one source can be traced back
to the other. As mentioned, reverse and forward recordchecks have traditionally been used to inves-
tigate these questions. We argue that these are not optimally designed to investigate the research
questions at hand. Therefore, in addition to using these traditionalmeasures, we design a new, more
comprehensive measure to calculate the total discrepancy between the two data sources. Results are
based on victimization survey and police data from Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
In the following, we first discuss methodological issues in the measurement of crime using
police data and victimization surveys, and introduce methods that can be used to measure the
discrepancy between both sources. Subsequently, we review earlier studies that have compared
police and survey data. Data and results are presented in the sections thereafter, concluded by a
discussion section.
Measuring crime using police data and victimization surveys
Police data have long been used to measure crime, but they have also long been recognized to have
methodological problems. To end up in police records, crime events must be reported to the police.
Hence, police measures of crime only reflect reported crimes, and to report a crime ‘people must
define an event as falling into the domain of events about which ‘‘the police must do something’’’
92 International Review of Victimology 18(2)
92
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations