{"title":"Meta-Analysis and Social Services Interventions","authors":"","doi":"10.4018/978-1-7998-1147-3.ch002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The percentage of recidivism reduction projected to reduce recidivism by each social service or intervention is presented. Meta-analysis is used to determine these projections. However, in the last few years meta-analysis methods have been questioned. The most formidable criticism of meta-analysis is found in a master study of the statistical power of studies in criminology. This master study (of over 8,000 studies) found that about 25% of studies in criminology exhibited high statistical power (in the 0.99 to 1.00 range). However, the study also found about 25% of studies had power between 0.01 and 0.24. These findings suggested that roughly a fourth of all studies in criminology have levels of statistical power that make it nearly impossible to identify the effects they are estimating. In other words, this chapter questions whether we should be confident in the recidivism reduction projections for various interventions.","PeriodicalId":147452,"journal":{"name":"Community Risk and Protective Factors for Probation and Parole Risk Assessment Tools","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community Risk and Protective Factors for Probation and Parole Risk Assessment Tools","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1147-3.ch002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The percentage of recidivism reduction projected to reduce recidivism by each social service or intervention is presented. Meta-analysis is used to determine these projections. However, in the last few years meta-analysis methods have been questioned. The most formidable criticism of meta-analysis is found in a master study of the statistical power of studies in criminology. This master study (of over 8,000 studies) found that about 25% of studies in criminology exhibited high statistical power (in the 0.99 to 1.00 range). However, the study also found about 25% of studies had power between 0.01 and 0.24. These findings suggested that roughly a fourth of all studies in criminology have levels of statistical power that make it nearly impossible to identify the effects they are estimating. In other words, this chapter questions whether we should be confident in the recidivism reduction projections for various interventions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
荟萃分析与社会服务干预
提出了每项社会服务或干预措施预计减少累犯的百分比。荟萃分析用于确定这些预测。然而,在过去的几年里,元分析方法受到了质疑。对元分析最令人生畏的批评出现在一项关于犯罪学研究的统计能力的研究中。这项主要研究(超过8000项研究)发现,大约25%的犯罪学研究显示出很高的统计力(在0.99到1.00之间)。然而,该研究还发现,约25%的研究的功率在0.01到0.24之间。这些发现表明,大约四分之一的犯罪学研究具有一定的统计能力,几乎不可能确定他们所估计的影响。换句话说,本章质疑我们是否应该对各种干预措施减少累犯的预测有信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) Probation and Parole Protective Factors Adult Education Need vs. Capacity Recidivism Reduction Research Missing “Get Tough” Risk Factors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1