How generalizable are findings from police surveys? A review of multi-agency studies

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-05-16 DOI:10.1080/15614263.2023.2214282
Erin M. Kearns, Justin Nix
{"title":"How generalizable are findings from police surveys? A review of multi-agency studies","authors":"Erin M. Kearns, Justin Nix","doi":"10.1080/15614263.2023.2214282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Policing scholars frequently use surveys to understand officer attitudes and behavioral intentions. Yet, it is difficult to gain access to one – let alone multiple – agencies. Thus, officer surveys often reflect views in a single department, making it unclear how generalizable the findings are. For the present study, we conducted an exploratory review of articles published in 16 criminology and policing journals from 2000 to 2017. We identified 600 studies that involved surveying one or more samples of police officers. From this list, we set out to determine: (1) how often authors administered their surveys to more than one sample, and (2) when surveys were administered to more than one sample, how often were results consistent across samples? We found eighty-seven (14.5%) articles that involved collecting survey data from multiple agencies, though only 29 (4.8% overall, 33.3% of multi-agencies studies) met our inclusion criteria. Importantly, only 15 studies could be analyzed as some authors no longer had data, could not share data, or did not response to our emails. Results were fully consistent across samples in just one published study. In the other studies, findings partially replicated – though sometimes results were in the opposite direction across departments. Thus, replication is critical before policy is created from single-agency surveys.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2023.2214282","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Policing scholars frequently use surveys to understand officer attitudes and behavioral intentions. Yet, it is difficult to gain access to one – let alone multiple – agencies. Thus, officer surveys often reflect views in a single department, making it unclear how generalizable the findings are. For the present study, we conducted an exploratory review of articles published in 16 criminology and policing journals from 2000 to 2017. We identified 600 studies that involved surveying one or more samples of police officers. From this list, we set out to determine: (1) how often authors administered their surveys to more than one sample, and (2) when surveys were administered to more than one sample, how often were results consistent across samples? We found eighty-seven (14.5%) articles that involved collecting survey data from multiple agencies, though only 29 (4.8% overall, 33.3% of multi-agencies studies) met our inclusion criteria. Importantly, only 15 studies could be analyzed as some authors no longer had data, could not share data, or did not response to our emails. Results were fully consistent across samples in just one published study. In the other studies, findings partially replicated – though sometimes results were in the opposite direction across departments. Thus, replication is critical before policy is created from single-agency surveys.
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
警方调查的结果有多普遍?多机构研究综述
警务学者经常使用调查来了解警官的态度和行为意图。然而,要接触到一个机构是很困难的,更不用说多个机构了。因此,官员调查往往反映了单个部门的观点,使得调查结果的普遍性不清楚。在本研究中,我们对2000年至2017年发表在16种犯罪学和警务期刊上的文章进行了探索性回顾。我们确定了600项涉及调查一个或多个警察样本的研究。从这个列表中,我们开始确定:(1)作者对多个样本进行调查的频率;(2)当对多个样本进行调查时,不同样本之间结果一致的频率是多少?我们发现87篇(14.5%)文章涉及从多个机构收集调查数据,但只有29篇(总体4.8%,占多机构研究的33.3%)符合我们的纳入标准。重要的是,只有15项研究可以分析,因为一些作者不再有数据,无法分享数据,或者没有回复我们的电子邮件。仅在一项已发表的研究中,所有样本的结果是完全一致的。在其他研究中,部分结果得到了重复——尽管有时不同部门的结果相反。因此,在根据单一机构的调查制定政策之前,复制是至关重要的。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Intentions to move abroad among medical students: a cross-sectional study to investigate determinants and opinions. Analysis of Medical Rehabilitation Needs of 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Victims: Adıyaman Example. Efficacy of whole body vibration on fascicle length and joint angle in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Prevalence and predictors of hand hygiene compliance in clinical, surgical and intensive care unit wards: results of a second cross-sectional study at the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome.
×
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