The Relative Incident Rate Ratio Effect Size for Count-Based Impact Evaluations: When an Odds Ratio is Not an Odds Ratio
Area-based prevention studies often produce results that can be represented in a 2-by-2 table of counts. For example, a table may show the crime counts during a 12-month period prior to the intervention compared to a 12-month period during the intervention for a treatment and control area or areas....
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2022
|
| En: |
Journal of quantitative criminology
Año: 2022, Volumen: 38, Número: 2, Páginas: 323-341 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Palabras clave: |
| Sumario: | Area-based prevention studies often produce results that can be represented in a 2-by-2 table of counts. For example, a table may show the crime counts during a 12-month period prior to the intervention compared to a 12-month period during the intervention for a treatment and control area or areas. Studies of this type have used either Cohen’s d or the odds ratio as an effect size index. The former is unsuitable and the latter is a misnomer when used on data of this type. Based on the quasi-Poisson regression model, an incident rate ratio and relative incident rate ratio effect size and associated overdispersion parameter are developed and advocated as the preferred effect size for count-based outcomes in impact evaluations and meta-analyses of such studies. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-7799 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10940-021-09494-w |
