NCJ Number
48162
Date Published
1977
Length
26 pages
Annotation
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING THE STUDIES USED UNDER THE FOUR TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE GENERAL REPORT ARE EXPLAINED, AND RESEARCH INADEQUACIES ENCOUNTERED IN THE STUDIES SURVEYED ARE IDENTIFIED.
Abstract
IN EXPLAINING THE METHODOLOGY FOR STUDY SELECTION, IT IS INDICATED THAT STUDIES IN THE CLIENT/CASELOAD AREAS WERE SELECTED FOR REVIEW ONLY IF THEY REPORTED DATA FOR A CLEARLY DEFINED SAMPLE OF PROBATIONERS; HOWEVER, IF A STUDY LACKED THIS ELEMENT BUT APPEARED TO PRESENT NOVEL IMPLICATIONS, IT WAS INCLUDED. PREDICTION STUDIES WERE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY. FOR STUDIES RELATED TO PROBATION REVOCATION AND RECIDIVISM. CLEAR DEFINITIONS OF THE CRITERIA MEASURING PROBATIONER OUTCOMES AND THE SAMPLE OR SAMPLES STUDIED WERE NECESSARY FOR SELECTION. SELECTED STUDIES FOR THE TREATMENT MODALITIES SUBJECT AREA WERE CHARACTERIZED BY THE USE OF AN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OR ALTERNATIVE DESIGN INTENDED TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF SELECTION BIAS AFFECTING COMPARISONS. SERIOUS INADEQUACIES WERE FOUND IN THE BULK OF THE STUDIES REVIEWED. FAILURES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS ARE DISCUSSED: THE CAREFUL FORMULATION OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN IN ADVANCE; THE SELECTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FOR STUDY; THE UTILIZATION OF A CONTROL GROUP, OTHER COMPARISON GROUPS, OR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ADEQUATE STATISTICAL CONTROLS; THE COLLECTION OF RELIABLE DATA; AND THE USE OF APPROPRIATE STATISTICAL METHODS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR PROBATION LIES IN THE POOR QUALITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT PROBATION AND ITS RESULTS. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)