Introduced in the late 1950's by Short and Nye, the self-reporting technique for measuring delinquent behavior obtained sufficient recognition to justify a conference on the topic at Syracuse University in 1965. The self-reporting method is not as defective as its critics claim nor as accurate as its defenders suggest. Given its limited cost, unusual content control, broad applicability, and presumed validity, continued use of the self-reporting methods is certain. If it continues to be used in its present form, the self-reporting technique will only solidify the impression that it produces findings consistently at odds with official records. It is argued that the form of self-reporting instruments causes them to be unnecessarily discrepant with official measures. Failure to devise standardized instruments covering a broader range of offenses in the addition to those included now (which are too trivial to result in official sanctions) should be remedied by adding serious criminal acts to the coverage. Better methods for assessing reliability and validity and a greater variety of methods of administering the tests should be devised. For the purposes of evaluation research self-reports offer advantages for evaluators, including the ability to reach populations having had little or no contact with the criminal justice system. Even where official contact is relatively frequent or serious, the self-report procedure provides a versatile supplemental criterion of effectiveness. An illustrative self-report instrument featuring an official contact index and a serious crime index is included with the text. Four endnotes and 31 references are appended.