National Research Council panel goes over NCVS rape/sexual assault methodology with a fine-toothed comb, then compares results to other studies measuring higher incidences of rape. Ignores methodology in other studies and declares NCVS "underestimates" rape.

Simply amazing to read (warning long). You can download a free pdf of the the report here, but you need to do a guest registration (I made up a throwaway email account):

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18605/estimating-the-incidence-of-rape-and-sexual-assault

The report actually is a great summary of all of the current rape statistics in the US. But I cannot help but conclude that there is something political going on here, and that they are trying to discredit/modify the DOJ's NCVS rape/sexual assault reporting -- the gold standard for annual crime statistics in the US. The Washington Post poll article mentioned this panel as justification for dismissing the NCVS results.

From page 91:

At this point, definitive conclusions regarding which data source produced the most accurate estimates of rape and sexual assault would be useful. However, the panel acknowledges that it cannot scientifically make such conclusions in this report. The first barrier to such conclusions: the panel focused on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and not the other sources. It examined the NCVS under the structure of total survey error (Chapters 7, 8, and 9), and these analyses allowed the panel to draw conclusions and make recommendations regarding the NCVS. The panel did not provide the same deliberative focus on each of the other sources of data, in part because of limited time and resources. Thus we know a good deal about the potential errors in the NCVS and much less about the potential errors in the other sources. Specifically, this does not mean that the other sources have fewer potential errors, only that these errors are not analyzed in this report.

Then on page 106:

In reviewing all of this material, the panel thinks that it is highly likely that the NCVS is underestimating rape and sexual assault. The panel, with limited resources, was not able to measure the extent of such an undercount, but the pattern is one that shows lower estimates of rape and sexual assault in the NCVS than the estimates published from the other surveys. Thus, the panel looked in more detail at the error profile of the NCVS to better understand procedures that might be contributing to this undercount. This analysis is contained in Chapters 7, 8, and 9.

First they say they cannot vouch for the accuracy of the other studies, then they say they are certain the other studies are "right" because they all have higher rape rates LOL.

One thing that struck me is that the NVCS is really a massive undertaking. They do personal interviews at the beginning and end. The response rate and sample sizes (page 101) are FAR higher than in the other studies. NCWSV (1996-97), the other study with a high response rate measured a rape rate of only 19.3 per 1000 female college students.

A look at the panel members on pages v and vi reveals some of the usual rape hysteriac suspects. Cochair Candace Kruttschnitt of U Toronto, for example. One member even resigned. (page vi)

[–]ion56 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ion56 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

NCVS is largest for surveys of victimization. For rape/sexual assault, a person may experience no adverse effects from being raped and may not even know that he was raped unless someone interprets his experience for him. Hence population surveys of victimization and criminal justice processing of such claims are the only means for measuring rape/sexual assault.

Crimes such as assault with serious injury have objectively observable effects. For serious domestic violence (assault causing injury serious enought to prompt a visit to the hospital emergency room), surveys of hospital emergency department visits provide an alternative, objective measure. The U.S. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All-Injury Program (NEISS) has a much larger sample size for interpersonal violence causing serious injury than does the NCVS. That comparison shows significant limitations of NCVS:

From 1995 to 2004, NCVS indicates, for men and women respectively, an annual average 160,000 and 123,000 estimated violence-related victimizations with injuries prompting hospital emergency department visits. NEISS, which has a much larger sample and a more direct reporting procedure, indicates for men and women respectively in 2001 an estimated 808,000 and 539,000 violence-related victimizations with injuries prompting hospital emergency department visits. NCVS apparently does not accurately measure violent victimizations resulting in serious physical injury.

See http://acrosswalls.org/notes/neiss-ncvs-statistics-domestic-violence/

More generally criminalization is only a small subset of victimization. See: http://acrosswalls.org/criminalization-victimization/

[–]xNOM[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

For rape/sexual assault, a person may experience no adverse effects from being raped and may not even know that he was raped unless someone interprets his experience for him.

Yes well this is a two way street for NCVS. Because the questions simply ask about "forced or coerced sex", there will also be people who claim they have been raped/sexually assaulted who have not. This would result in false positives for rape/sexual assault in the NCVS. Without doing a new survey which asks more detailed questions AND has a large enough sample size and response rate, it is scientific misconduct to simply state that the NCVS "most likely" underestimates. The size of these potential positive and negative biases due to the question format is completely unknown. All of the other current rape studies have sample size problems or response rate problems or both. The "underestimates rape" conclusion of this panel is biased and unscientific, IMO.

The crime is not defined objectively enough. This is the main problem with modern rape. It is a thought crime. This is also another possible reason the numbers might be all over the place, IMO. Two people getting drunk and screwing is a rather ludicrous instance of rape. There need to be several categories of rape with objective definitions.

EDIT: added drunk part, spelling

Comments