Nonresponse Bias in Randomized Controlled Experiments in Criminology

Author:

Antrobus Emma1,Elffers Henk234,White Gentry51,Mazerolle Lorraine1

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Social Science Research and ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

2. Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, NSCR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3. Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

4. Visiting Fellow, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS)

5. Mathematical Sciences School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Abstract

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 police—were 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 responses—like QCET—are 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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Social Sciences,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3