U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Comparing the Validity of Prospective, Retrospective and Official Onset for Different Offending Categories

NCJ Number
209965
Journal
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Volume: 21 Issue: 2 Dated: June 2005 Pages: 127-147
Author(s)
Lila Kazemian; David P. Farrington
Date Published
June 2005
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This study compared the age of onset of criminal offending according to three different methods of measurement: prospective self-reports, retrospective self-reports, and official records.
Abstract
The criminological research literature has long debated the validity of self-report and official crime record data as measures of offending behavior. The current study adds to this literature by examining the extent to which retrospective and official onset ages agree with prospective onset ages, widely assumed to be the most accurate measure of offending onset. Data were drawn from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a prospective longitudinal study of 411 males residing in London; data included interviews completed at ages 14, 16, 18, and 32 years of age. Results of statistical analyses indicated that when compared to prospective age at onset, in retrospect offenders rarely remembered the age at which they initiated offending particularly in regards to minor offending. Generally, retrospective reports overestimated the age of onset. Comparisons of prospective and official onset ages revealed similarly low rates of agreement. The findings suggest that retrospective reports are not appropriate for addressing research questions involving recall of detailed information and that official measures of offending may produce misleading results especially in regards to questions involving minor offending. Tables, references