A Math/Statistics Question For Anyone Interested

[Al Doggity]

 (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).


There really is no question about what this means.

[Archer77]

If the purpose is to provide a count of victimizations in order
to calculate a national rate of victimization, the precision of
the victim’s response is very important. This is especially true
when the event being measured is statistically rare. Under
this condition, the inclusion of a small number of high-rate
victims can result in national rates that vary widely. The
challenges that victims of repeated crimes have in recounting
the number of times an event occurred are not unique to
surveys designed to estimate victimization. Instead, they are
common to all survey research in which respondents are
asked to recount events that they experience frequently (e.g.,
Sudman et al, 1996; Groves et al, 2004).


Prior research findings and our analyses suggest using a
capping method when counting series victimizations for
national victimization rates to limit the influence of higher
and less consistent reports. Using a capping strategy made it
necessary to determine at what level the cap should be set.
Other countries that provide victimization rates (rather than
prevalence rates) used a cap of five for victimizations similar
in nature (using a 1-year recall period). A comparable cap of
five for the NCVS would be illogical, as series victimizations
must include at least six victimizations according to the
definitions used in the NCVS. Although the modal response
category by series victims is six victimizations for all NCVS
years, a cap of six would be too low, as it would not capture
the relative frequency of victimizations for the majority of
series victims.
The median response count for series victims of violence was
10 victimizations per the 6-month recall period across nearly
all NCVS years. The decision was made to use a value of 10
as the cap on series victimizations because it was found to
be stable over time and included the count provided directly
from the victim for the majority of series victimization cases.
The cap of 10 was also selected because the consistency of
responses began to decline at that point, and the magnitude of
the discrepancies began to increase.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).

This new series counting decision balances the concerns
of wanting victimization rates to include the experiences
of high-rate victims while understanding that multiple
sources of error exist in estimates of the number of
victimizations that occurred. These sources of error include
less consistency when the counts are higher, a greater
magnitude in the discrepancies when the counts are higher,
and possible overestimation of some victimization counts in
instances where victims report four or five victimizations,
but interviewers then use the series protocol requiring a
minimum of six victimizations to reduce respondent burden.
Beginning with NCVS data for 2010, the annual BJS report
Criminal Victimization included estimates of violent
victimization that took series incidents into account by using a
cap of 10 victimizations per series report (figure 9). (For more
information, see Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 234408,
September 2011.) To assess the impact of the new series
counting, the rates of violent victimization were compared
without the inclusion of series victimizations to the rates that
included series victimizations from 1993 to 2009.

[Al Doggity]

None of that is related to the topic.

[Archer77]

(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.


Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).

[Al Doggity]

Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.

Okay. So, right from your link:

In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.

So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again.

[Archer77]

Okay. So, right from your link:

In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.

So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again.

I don't need to swerve.  The reason the co-eff is high is because they capped serial victimization at 10 in order to prevent outliers to skew national statistics.

The degree to which the inclusion of series victimizations
would affect crime-specific rates depended on the relative
rarity and the proportion of series victimizations for that
type of crime. Annual estimates of rape and sexual assault
varied more from year to year depending on the inclusion
of series victimizations, because this type of crime occurred
less often than nonsexual assaults. Rape and sexual assaults
contained a higher proportion of series victimizations
compared to robbery and aggravated assault. When
annual estimates were sensitive to the inclusion of series
victimizations, percentage change estimates across selected
years were more likely to vary.
Prior research by Planty and Strom (2007) found that
the degree to which the inclusion of series victimizations
affected the annual victimization rates varied by crime type.
Using data from the NCVS from 1993 to 2000, they found
that estimates of rape and sexual assault were most sensitive
to the inclusion of series victimizations, as were simple
assaults. Our research suggested similar conclusions to those
reported by Planty and Strom

[Al Doggity]

The point is made, Archer77. Your opinions are garbage. You don't even believe in them enough to be honest with yourself. You're sitting there pretending not to understand basic English because that's easier for you than engaging with the world realistically.

Whatever, man. If I'm bored, I'll engage you again and the results will be the same. You will embarrass yourself twisting and turning trying to come up with some stupid angle to salvage your dignity instead of educating yourself.

You're not a man of integrity and you certainly aren't a data- driven thinker. You're just a troll.

[Archer77]

The point is made Archer77. Your opinions are garbage. You don't even believe in them enough to be honest with yourself. Your sitting there pretending not to understand basic English because you can't stand the idea that crime stats aren't the American Holocaust you want them to be.

Whatever, man. If I'm bored, I'll engage you again and the results will be the same. You will embarrass yourself twisting and turning trying to come up with some stupid angle to salvage your dignity instead of educating yourself.

Your not a man of integrity and you certainly aren't a data- driven thinker. You're just a troll.

The methodology changed because serial victimizations were having to great an effect on national statistics.  The new method of limiting serial victimizations was intended to prevent outliers from skewing the results.
 
For rape and sexual assault, the rates excluding series
victimizations ranged from 0% to 48% lower than the rates
obtained when series victimizations were included (figure
10). In 1998, 2004, 2005, and 2007, the differences between
the two estimates were not statistically significant (p <
.05), primarily because victims reported very few series
victimizations of these types. In each of these years, the
total unweighted number of series rape and sexual assault
victimizations reported was three or fewer. The inclusion of
series victimizations in the estimates generally did not affect
the long-term trends in rape and sexual assault, although
the estimate of the magnitude of change over time varied
depending on the years selected for comparison.
While both trends showed a similar pattern of decline from
1993 to 2009, more annual variation occurred in the rates
that included series victimizations. From 1993 to 2009, rape
and sexual assault rates declined 80% when excluding series
victimizations and declined 72% when including series
victimizations (table 10). When estimating the change from
2001 to 2009, the rates declined 54% when excluding series
victimizations and 42% when including series victimizations.
The most recent annual change in this series (i.e., from
2008 to 2009) was estimated to be a 39% decline excluding
series victimizations and a 13% decline including series
victimizations. Since BJS reports included tests for whether
each percentage change estimate was statistically significant,
the same general conclusion would have been made about
the changes in rape and sexual assault from 2008 to 2009
regardless of whether series victimizations were included. In
this instance, neither change estimate was significant.

[Archer77]

Series Victimization

Series victimization is a category used when a respondent reports that six or more separate but similar victimizations have occurred during the 6-month reference period, but is unable to recall enough details of each incident to distinguish them from one another. Until recently, the NCVS estimates published in Criminal Victimization excluded series victimizations (or included them as a single victimization in certain special reports), which clearly undercounted the total number of all types of victimizations, including rape and sexual assault.

Beginning with Criminal Victimizations, 2011, BJS began including series victimizations directly in its estimates. The NCVS uses the victim's report of the number of similar victimizations, with a maximum of 10, and collects (and applies to each victimization) detailed information only for the most recent victimization. These new procedures are being applied to all types of victimizations, including rape and sexual assault (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012a, p. 13):

BJS now includes series victimizations using the victim's estimate of the number of times the victimizations occurred over the past 6 months, capping the number of victimizations within each series at a maximum of 10. This strategy for counting series victimizations balances the desire to estimate national rates and account for the experience of persons with repeat victimizations while noting that some estimation errors exist in the number of times these victimizations occurred. This bulletin is the first to include series victimizations throughout the entire report, and all victimizations estimates in this report reflect this new count strategy.

A technical report provides findings on the extent and nature of series victimization (Lauritsen et al., 2012, p. iii):

Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimizations; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included. The impact of including series victimizations may vary across years and crime types, in part reflecting the relative rarity of the offense type under consideration.

BJS has revised estimates back to 1993 in its online database, accessible through the NCVS victimization analysis tool.16 The effects of this change on the estimates of rape and sexual assault are so substantial that the panel decided to include both estimates—one based on the new method of including up to 10 victimizations in series, and one in which series victimizations are excluded—in our comparisons in Chapters 6 and 7. The revised estimation process means that a very small number of reports have a major impact on the estimates. (This issue is further discussed in Chapters 6, 7, and 10.)

[Archer77]

The panel did not have the time and resources to examine specific alternative outlier adjustment procedures. Thus we address the issue in more general terms. It is clear that a subpopulation is at risk for being repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted over a relatively short period of time. This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.

CONCLUSION 7-2 Records identified as series victimizations create an outlier problem in the estimation process for the National Crime Victimization Survey. The current method for handling series victimization, although an improvement over the method used until 2011, allows these relatively rare reports to have a large impact on the national estimates of rape and sexual assault and creates large year-to-year volatility.




The new method for dealing with serial victimizations is limiting them to ten.  The high co-eff warning is to inform the the reader of the inclusion of the limited number of serial victimizations.

BJS has revised estimates back to 1993 in its online database, accessible through the NCVS victimization analysis tool.16 The effects of this change on the estimates of rape and sexual assault are so substantial that the panel decided to include both estimates—one based on the new method of including up to 10 victimizations in series, and one in which series victimizations are excluded—in our comparisons in Chapters 6 and 7. The revised estimation process means that a very small number of reports have a major impact on the estimates. (This issue is further discussed in Chapters 6, 7, and 10.)

[SF1900]

The panel did not have the time and resources to examine specific alternative outlier adjustment procedures. Thus we address the issue in more general terms. It is clear that a subpopulation is at risk for being repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted over a relatively short period of time.

I love how youre citing that part bolded in black and red and yet, when debating with me over PM, you're asking for ABSOLUTES, i.e., do systems affect EVERY family in every situation and are ALL systems the same, etc. When in that very same line they are speaking in general terms and referring to a subpopulation. They are not stating ABSOLUTES, which you demanded from me.

Epic hypocrite.

[Archer77]

I love how youre citing that part bolded in black and red and yet, when debating with me over PM, you're asking for ABSOLUTES, i.e., do systems affect EVERY family in every situation and are ALL systems the same, etc.

Epic hypocrite.

You gave me two personal experiences that do not prove a systemic problem exists. What I posted was from the study.  If you want to continue on private message we can.

[Archer77]

I love how youre citing that part bolded in black and red and yet, when debating with me over PM, you're asking for ABSOLUTES, i.e., do systems affect EVERY family in every situation and are ALL systems the same, etc. When in that very same line they are speaking in general terms and referring to a subpopulation. They are not stating ABSOLUTES, which you demanded from me.

Epic hypocrite.

It's not bolded in black. Here is the rest.


This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.

All they are saying is that they don't have a better method for understanding the subpopulation.

haha, back peddling. I also told you that there are hundreds, if not thousands of peer reviewed journal articles overing the topic we were discussing. Do you want me to email you every fucking article I own or discuss every single case I ever came across. Shit, a quick google search will probably turn up millions of hits.

Even if I gave you 10 experiences and provided you with 50 journal articles, you still demanded ABSOLUTES, which is impossible to supply. There are NO absolutes. I can never provide you with enough evidence to provide an absolute, of which you demanded.

You never provided any peer reviewed journal articles.  The only thing you provided were two personal experiences.  You don't have to send me every article you own but more than zero would be good.  I asked you how your personal experiences-all the evidence you provided-supports the idea of a systemic problem.  As I mentioned to you in PM's I'm open to anything you have to say.

[SF1900]

It's not bolded in black. Here is the rest.


This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.

All they are saying is that they don't have a better method for understanding the subpopulation.

Again, the fact that they are studying a subpopulation of something, just supports my stance that I do not need absolutes to support my position (It happens EVERYWHERE).

[SF1900]

It's not bolded in black. Here is the rest.


This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.

All they are saying is that they don't have a better method for understanding the subpopulation.

You never provided any peer reviewed journal articles.  The only thing you provided were two personal experiences.  You don't have to send me every article you own but more than zero would be good.  I asked you how your personal experiences-all the evidence you provided-supports the idea of a systemic problem.  As I mentioned to you in PM's I'm open to anything you have to say.

I did not provide you with any articles becuase you were asking for a bullshit absolute. So why supply you with anything when youre just going to say something dumb like, "BUT IT DOESNT HAPPEN EVERYWHERE."   Great logic.

As stated, the universe (for the most part) does not work in absolutes. It works in probabilities.

[Archer77]

Again, the fact that they are studying a subpopulation of something, just supports my stance that I do not need absolutes to support my position (It happens EVERYWHERE).

Though, to be honest, when i presented the argument about obesity and heart disease you did concede and say, "Fair enough."

They are saying they don't have enough information to make an accurate assessment of the subpopulation and a better methodology is needed. In essence, they aren't going to make an assessment and thus no judgement.

I was saying fair enough to your personal experience, as in, I will take it into consideration.

I did not provide you with any articles becuase you were asking for a bullshit absolute. So why supply you with anything when youre just going to say something dumb like, "BUT IT DOESNT HAPPEN EVERYWHERE."  Great logic.

As stated, the universe (for the most part) does not work in absolutes. It works in probabilities.

Just admit that you were wrong. ADmit that you were asking for absolutes, when you know as well as I do that in research there are no absolutes, and just because something is not absolute, it doesn't make it not true.

I wasn't asking for absolutes.  I was asking for more than two examples.  I was asking how your personal experiences indicating a systemic problem.  How you were able to gauge a systemic problem existed across multiple institutions. I asked whether the problem you were dealing with was human incompetence or if was systemic and intentional.

[Archer77]

Just admit that you were wrong. Admit that you were asking for absolutes, when you know as well as I do that in research there are no absolutes, and just because something is not absolute, it doesn't make it not true. Because I have the PM where you wanted me to apply it to EVERY and ALL systems and instutions, and you know that is not the way research works.

You were arguing the problem was systemic.  That's about as absolute as one can get. I asked you how your personal experience translate into there being a systemic problem.

[SF1900]

They are saying they don't have enough information to make an accurate assessment of the subpopulation and a better methodology is needed. In essence, they aren't going to make an assessment and thus no judgement.

I was saying fair enough to your personal experience, as in, I will take it into consideration.


I wasn't asking for absolutes.  I was asking for more than two examples.  I was asking how your personal experiences indicating a systemic problem.  How you were able to gauge a systemic problem existed across multiple institutions. I asked whether the problem you were dealing with was human incompetence or if was systemic and intentional.

You're a good fucking liar.

This is what you said:

How are they applicable to the all institutions?  How are your examples applicable to the DCF everywhere else?

Asking how they are applicable to ALL institutions is asking for an absolute. Asking how they apply to DCF everywhere else (meaning all DCFS in other states) is asking for an absolute.

Wanting me to relate and apply something to ALL institutions is dumb and asking for an absolute. And of course not every institution works or is affected the same way, similarly just like not all obese people have heart problems.

[SF1900]

You were arguing the problem was systemic.  That's about as absolute as one can get. I asked you how your personal experience translate into there being a systemic problem.

Yes, the problem is systemic. No where did I say it applied to ALL systems and can be applicable to ALL systems. You did. I stated simply that the problem is systemic. Nowhere once did I state its the case in ALL systems.

Also, I stated there was an interaction between people, environment and systems, thus making it obvious that its not just a system problem. That its a mixture of all three variables.

Not only are you a liar, but youre putting words into my mouth. Point to where I said it was applicable to ALL systems.

[Archer77]

You're a good fucking liar.

This is what you said:

How are they applicable to the all institutions?  How are your examples applicable to the DCF everywhere else?

Asking how they are applicable to ALL institutions is asking for an absolute. Asking how they apply to DCF everywhere else (meaning all DCFS in other states) is asking for an absolute.

Wanting me to relate and apply something to ALL institutions is dumb and asking for an absolute. And of course not every institution works or is affected the same way, similarly just like not all obese people have heart problems.

Yes, that is what I said and have been saying in this thread.  You said the problem was systemic and institutional.  I was asking how two examples you gave prove your assertion.  How they prove there is a systemic problem at the DCFS  I asked you how that proves there is a greater systemic problem in other institutions. How is it systemic if the problem exist only at the DCFS you dealt with?

[Novena]

To get a polling that will be accurate to plus/minus 2 percent for the United States, you need to survey 2500  people.

[Archer77]

To get a polling that will be accurate to plus/minus 2 percent for the United States, you need to survey 2500  people.

They poll more than 10 people.

[SF1900]

Yes, that is what I said and have been saying in this thread.  You said the problem was systemic and institutional.  I was asking how two examples you gave prove your assertion.  How they prove there is a systemic problem at the DCFS other than the one you dealt with personally.  I asked you how that proofs there is a greater systemic problem in other institutions.

No, you dingbat. My god. You asked for an absolute (how it applied to ALL institutions). That's impossible to answer.

There is a difference in wording!!! Asking how there is a problem systemically in a particular situation is A LOT different than asking how it applies to ALL institutions. You can't give an absolute, just in the same way you cant say that obesity is going to lead to heart disease in every person.

Now if I provided you with more evidence that there is a systemic issue with DCF, that in no way means it applies to ALL DCF organizations in every single state. If a systemic problem in DCF exists in 18 states out of 50, that does not mean there is not a systemic issue with DCF. It indicates that there is enough evidence to suggest that that it may affect people in those state and its a variable to examine and to keep in mind even in those states where the problem does not currently exist (because those problems could always arise at any time).

As stated for the 100th fucking time, there is enough anecdotal evidence and peer reviewed journals and books that discuss this issue. If I have the time, I will send you some things.

[Archer77]

No, you dingbat. My god.

There is a difference in wording!!! Asking how there is a problem systemically in a particular situation is A LOT different than asking how it applies to ALL institutions. You can't give an absolute, just in the same way you cant say that obesity is going to lead to heart disease in every person.

Now if I provided you with more evidence that there is a systemic issue with DCF, that in no way means it applies to ALL DCF organizations in every single state. If a systemic problem in DCF exists in 18 states out of 50, that does not mean there is not a systemic issue with DCF. It indicates that there is enough evidence to suggest that that it may affect people in those state and its a variable to examine.

As stated for the 100th fucking time, there is enough anecdotal evidence and peer reviewed journals and books that discuss this issue.

You can say there is evidence all you want but you didn't provide any.  You provided two personal experiences that only apply to your immediate circumstances. If the problem exists only at the DCF you dealt with the problem can hardly be called systemic. It would be a local issue.

[SF1900]

You can say there is evidence all you want but you didn't provide any.  You provided two personal experiences that only apply to your immediate circumstances. If the problem exists only at the DCF you dealt with the problem can hardly be called systemic. It would be a local issue.

No, DCF is a system in-and-of-itself.

There are many different systems. The court is a system. The family is a system. DCF is a system. The school is a system.

If there is a problem with DCF I can say its a systemic issue, but its a systemic issue related to DCF.

Here, dingbat:

A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.

DCF is a system of interacting components (workers) that form a whole (DCF). DCF IS A SYSTEM!!

A mother, brother and father and sister are interacting component to form an integrated whole (the family unit). Thus, the family is a system.