Nonresponse Bias in Randomized Controlled Experiments in Criminology: Putting the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) Under a Microscope

被引:11
作者
Antrobus, Emma [1 ,2 ]
Elffers, Henk [3 ,4 ]
White, Gentry [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Mazerolle, Lorraine [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Social Sci Res Inst, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, ARC Ctr Excellence Policing & Secur CEPS, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
[3] NSCR, Netherlands Inst Study Crime & Law Enforcement, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Dept Criminal Law & Criminol, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Math Sci, Fac Sci & Engn, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
experiments; nonresponse bias; survey response rates; SAMPLE SELECTION BIAS; SURVEY RESPONSE RATE; PROCEDURAL JUSTICE; CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS; POLICE LEGITIMACY;
D O I
10.1177/0193841X13518534
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Objectives: The goal of this article is to examine whether or not the results of the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET)a randomized controlled trial that tested the impact of procedural justice policing on citizen attitudes toward policewere affected by different types of nonresponse bias. Method: We use two methods (Cochrane and Elffers methods) to explore nonresponse bias: First, we assess the impact of the low response rate by examining the effects of nonresponse group differences between the experimental and control conditions and pooled variance under different scenarios. Second, we assess the degree to which item response rates are influenced by the control and experimental conditions. Results: Our analysis of the QCET data suggests that our substantive findings are not influenced by the low response rate in the trial. The results are robust even under extreme conditions, and statistical significance of the results would only be compromised in cases where the pooled variance was much larger for the nonresponse group and the difference between experimental and control conditions was greatly diminished. We also find that there were no biases in the item response rates across the experimental and control conditions. Conclusion: RCTs that involve field survey responseslike QCETare potentially compromised by low response rates and how item response rates might be influenced by the control or experimental conditions. Our results show that the QCET results were not sensitive to the overall low response rate across the experimental and control conditions and the item response rates were not significantly different across the experimental and control groups. Overall, our analysis suggests that the results of QCET are robust and any biases in the survey responses do not significantly influence the main experimental findings.
引用
收藏
页码:197 / 212
页数:16
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research [J].
Baruch, Yehuda ;
Holtom, Brooks C. .
HUMAN RELATIONS, 2008, 61 (08) :1139-1160
[2]  
Cochran G.W., 1963, Sampling techniques, V2nd
[3]   A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or internet-based surveys [J].
Cook, C ;
Heath, F ;
Thompson, RL .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2000, 60 (06) :821-836
[4]  
Elffers H, 2001, KWANTITATIEVE METHOD, V22, P49
[5]  
Elffers H., 1982, P 2 DUTCH SOC SOC C, P3
[6]   MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATE - A META-ANALYSIS OF SELECTED TECHNIQUES FOR INDUCING RESPONSE [J].
FOX, RJ ;
CRASK, MR ;
KIM, J .
PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 1988, 52 (04) :467-491
[7]   SAMPLE SELECTION BIAS AS A SPECIFICATION ERROR [J].
HECKMAN, JJ .
ECONOMETRICA, 1979, 47 (01) :153-161
[8]   Compromised police legitimacy as a predictor of violent crime in structurally disadvantaged communities [J].
Kane, RJ .
CRIMINOLOGY, 2005, 43 (02) :469-498
[9]   The Evidence-Based Policing Matrix [J].
Lum, Cynthia ;
Koper, Christopher S. ;
Telep, Cody W. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY, 2011, 7 (01) :3-26
[10]   SHAPING CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE LEGITIMACY: A RANDOMIZED FIELD TRIAL OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE [J].
Mazerolle, Lorraine ;
Antrobus, Emma ;
Bennett, Sarah ;
Tyler, Tom R. .
CRIMINOLOGY, 2013, 51 (01) :33-64