Criminology

What type of data did the authors collect (self-report, official data, etc.)
The authors of the study used both self-report and official data. Self-report data came from the police officers discretion regarding incidents of simple domestic assaults where both suspect and victim are present. Also, interviews on the victims after the police intervention fall under the self-report type of data. The official data were used to compare the outcomes of the experiment from the self-report data.
How did they collect it (surveys, case review, etc.)

The data were collected through forms given to police officers when they encounter a situation which falls into the requirement of the study. They were to take actions indicated by the report form. Then, they were to compose a brief report that will be submitted to a research staff. Follow-up interviews were also conducted on victims after the police intervention.

What types of measures were used (e.g., nominal, interval, etc.) to measure the independent and dependent variables

To measure the results from the officers reports, a multinomial logit formulation (nominal measure) was used. Variables from the police data sheet regarding the victims and suspects characteristics were grouped through getting their mean. With regards to the interviews, a binary logit equation was done for the dichotomous outcome. Regression analysis was also implemented on the study. The independent variable in the study is the type of deterrent measure  arrest, order (categorical  these are dummy variables). The dependent variable is the response to domestic assault.

Name three additional measures (just the name of the measure) did the authors include Why were each of these measures included

Three other measures were included by the authors in their study. These three analyses performed were 1) using a linear probability model 2) using a logit formulation and 3) using a proportional hazard approach. The said analyses were performed to measure the two outcome measures 1) a police-recorded failure of the offender to survive the six-month follow-up period and 2) the interview with the victims. These two outcomes were formulated in two opposite ways 1) as a dummy variable (categorical) and 2) the amount of time elapsed from the treatment to either a failure or the end of the follow-up period.

In sum, what were the results of this study Based on these results, how would you assess the research question and hypotheses posed by the authors
The results showed that the prescribed action by police officers regarding simple domestic assaults was 80 percent of the time implemented. Also, the deviance amplification model of labeling theory beyond initial labeling was falsified. On the other hand, the study falsified the specific deterrence prediction for a group of offenders with a high percentage of prior histories of both domestic violence and other kinds of crime.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the measures used by the authors
One of the weaknesses on the measures used was that they have uncertain construct validity. The official measure in fact neglected a large number of recur incidents, since a number of them were not reported. On the contrary, internal validity of the study is sound unless there is differential undercounting by the experimental treatments. The strength of the study lies in its theoretical cohesiveness and methodological design. Note that the research design is based on theory  the design follows theory. In short, reliability is ensured as far as deign is concerned.

How should research in this area be improved (strengthened) in the future
To improve this research in the future, all of the involved persons in the study must be dedicated on their goals. For example, police officers should be properly oriented on their roles on the study since half of the data needed in the research involves them.