Labeling Theory by Joseph Murray

Author:Joseph Murray [Murray, Joseph]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Criminology
ISBN: 9781351509893
Google: PlYPEAAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2017-09-08T03:27:49+00:00

Moderator Analyses

Juvenile system processing, at least given the experimental evidence presented here, appears to have consistently negative effects on crime measures of prevalence, incidence, and severity, as well as that measured by self-report. However, the results are not universal across every study and some experiments do report a positive impact for system processing. In addition, the size of the effect varies across the studies. In such cases, moderator analyses (examining how the effect varies across dimensions of the studies) can be helpful in illuminating these differences. Because prevalence data were reported in such a way that it could be used in metaanalysis by twenty-seven of the twenty-nine included studies, we rely on prevalence data reported at the first follow-up time interval for these moderating analyses. We have also limited our initial set of moderating analyses to five. We should also again note that the average follow-up time interval for first prevalence outcome measurement is between ten and eleven months.

Table 6.3 provides the results for five moderating analyses. Because analyses conducted assuming random effects models are considered more conservative, we report those and place those effect sizes computed in parentheses while assuming fixed effects models.

An important moderator is the type of control group that juvenile system processing is being compared to. There are two basic alternative groups in these experiments: (1) groups in which juveniles are diverted from the system to receive “services” (“diversion with services”); and (2) groups in which juveniles are diverted from the system and are simply released to receive no services (e.g., “counsel and release”). As Table 6.3 indicates, there are fourteen experiments that compare juvenile system processing with diversion and thirteen experiments that have a diversion with services alternative group. The overall effect for juvenile system processing is slightly negative when compared to “doing nothing,” with effect sizes of −.04 (random) and −.05 (fixed). When system processing is compared to “doing something,” the effect sizes are larger and remain negative, with −.16 (random) and −.28 (fixed).

Table 6.3

The results of moderating analyses

Moderator Characteristic Effect size—Random (Fixed)

Type of control group Diversion Alone (n = 14) −.04 (−.05)

Diversion with Services (n = 13) −.16 (−.28)

Did Michigan State University Yes (n = 12) −.20 (−.16)

researchers conduct the study? No (n = 15) −.03 (−.17)

Was the experiment reported Before 1990 (n = 21) −.17 (−.20)

before or after 1990? 1990 and Beyond (n = 6) .09 (.09)

Was the report published or Published (n = 11) −.18 (−.11)

unpublished? Unpublished (n = 16) −.06 (−.19)

What was the extent of the High (n = 8) −.29 (−.27)

study sample’s prior record? Moderate (n = 2) −.30 (−.30)

Low (n = 9) −.06 (−.13)

None (n = 3) .31 (.22)

Researchers and Ph.D. students from MSU, generally under the supervision of Professor William Davidson, conducted twelve of the experiments in the review sample. Davidson was part of a team that developed a particular approach to juvenile diversion that included behavioral contracting and child advocacy (the Adolescent Diversion Program). Given the long program of research that he and others established at MSU, they generated a number of the randomized trials in this review sample (over 40 percent).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.