NCJ Number
231890
Journal
Journal of Experimental Criminology Volume: 6 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2010 Pages: 245-252
Date Published
September 2010
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This article assessed the overall transparency of reporting in crime and justice trials using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement
Abstract
Descriptive validity is an important factor in assessing the transparent reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Measures of validity in crime and justice have reported on this issue but there has been a lack of standardization in comparison to other discipline areas (e.g., healthcare) where tools such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement have improved reporting standards. In this study, the authors evaluate crime and justice trials from five different settings (community, prevention, policing, correctional, and court) and assess the extent to which they transparently report information using the CONSORT Statement as a guide. Overall, the findings suggest that crime and justice studies have low descriptive validity. Reporting was poor on methods of randomization, outcome measures, statistical analyses, and study findings, though much better in regard to reporting of background and participant details. The authors found little evidence of improvement in reporting over time and no significant relationship between the number of CONSORT items reported and size of the trial sample. In conclusion, the authors argue that the state of descriptive validity in crime and justice is inadequate, and must change if we are to develop higher-quality studies that can be assessed systematically. The authors suggest the adoption of a modified CONSORT Statement for crime and justice research. Table, figures, appendix, and references (Published Abstract)