The main limitations of past research on desistance from crime include: (1) a lack of an operational definition of desistance and no consensus on what desistance entails; (2) a lack of follow-up studies past the age of adolescence; (3) a lack of understanding that desistance may be more accurately perceived as a process rather than as a discrete state that occurs abruptly; and (4) the lack of dynamic (changing) as opposed to static (unchanging) models of the desistance process. Previous research has also failed to examine the role of criminal opportunities and situational factors in the desistance process. Other areas that deserve more research attention include the question of whether the impact of social bonds on desistance is maintained when accounting for cognitive predispositions to crime. The author recommends that three main issues be considered in the measurement of desistance: (1) the study of desistance should extend beyond between-individual comparisons to focus also on within-individual change, which may be more valuable for informing post-onset intervention strategies; (2) attention should be paid to the mechanisms that operate during periods in which offenders are in the process of desisting; and (3) in order to examine the changes that occur in the dynamics of offender, various criminal career parameters should be integrated when measuring desistance. Future research should focus on a number of issues, including how the predictors of desistance vary when adopting an extended, dynamic definition of desistance and how these predictors vary across different samples. Research should also examine whether the predictors of short-term desistance are similar to those of long-term desistance and whether it is possible to make long-term predictions about desistance. Table, references