Todos a una. Propuesta de un instrumento para medir los niveles de eficacia colectiva en España

  1. Diego Jesus Maldonado Guzmán 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Revista:
Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica: REIC

ISSN: 1696-9219

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 21

Número: 1

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.46381/REIC.V21I1.777 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica: REIC

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Collective efficacy is a term that refers to the differential capacity of local communities to exerciseadequate informal social control mechanisms. The authors of this construct argued that collectiveefficacyisthemainsocialforceresponsibleforvaryingcrimeratesacrossneighbourhoods.Althoughthere is evidence that collective efficacy is a stable predictor of crime, in Spain it has not been testedwhethertheitemsusedtomeasureitshowasimilarstructuretothatobtainedintheUScontext.Thispaper explores whether the classic items of the scale designed bySampson et al. (1997)to measurecollective efficacy maintain internal is composed of ten items and is applied to a total of 590 residents of the city of Barcelona by meansof a telephone survey. The results suggest a high internal consistency of the measuring instrument,and the exploratory factor analysis groups the items into three dimensions: social cohesion, sharedexpectations of common action and capacity for social control. Together, these dimensions explainmore than 64 % of the variance in the levels of collective efficacy.consistency, and whether they show a factor structure thatallows them to be grouped into the dimensions proposed by the US theoretical model. The final scale

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ankur, J., Saket, K., Chandel, S., & Pal, D.K. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science Technology, 7 (4), 396-403.
  • Armstrong, T. A., Katz, C. M., & Schnebly, S. M. (2015). The Relationship Between Citizen Perceptions of Collective Efficacy and Neighborhood Violent Crime. Crime & Delinquency , 61(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710386202
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control . W. H. Freeman and Company.
  • Bellair, P. (2017). Social Disorganization theory. Oxford research encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice . https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.253
  • Bisquerra, R., & Pérez-Escoba, N. (2015). ¿Pueden las escalas Likert aumentar en sensibilidad? REIRE, Revista d’Innovació i Recerca en Educació, 8 (2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1344/reire2015.8.2.828
  • Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. como Frontiers in Public Health , 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
  • Browning, C. R., Byron, R.A., Calder, C.A., Krivo, L.J., Keiwan, M., Lee. J.Y., & Peterson, R.D. (2010). Commercial density, residential concentration and crime: land use patterns and violence in neighborhood context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47 (3),329-357.
  • Browning, C.R., Feinberg, S.L, & Dietz, R. (2004). The paradox of social organization: network, collective efficacy and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social forces, 83 (2). 503-534.
  • Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H.G. (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lexington Books.
  • Bursik, R.J. (2006). Rethinking the Chicago School of criminology: a new era of immigration. En R. Martínez & A. Valenzuela (Eds.). Immigration and crime: race, ethnicity, and violence (pp. 20-35). New York University Pres.
  • Calleja, N. Reskala Sánchez, F.J. Rivera-Fong, L., & Buenrostro Mercado, D. (2019). Efecto del número de opciones de respuesta en las propiedades psicométricas de cuatro escalas psicosociales. Revista de Psicología y Ciencias del Comportamiento de la Unidad Académica de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, 10(2), 100-113. https://doi.org/10.29059/rpcc.20191126-94
  • Cox, E. P. (1980). The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700401
  • Elliott, D. S., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R. J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33 (4), 389–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427896033004002
  • Feldmeyer, B., Madero-Hernandez, A., Rojas-Gaona, C. E., & Sabon, L. C. (2019). Immigration, collective efficacy, social ties, and violence: Unpacking the mediating mechanisms in immigration effects on neighborhood -level violence. Race and Justice, 9 (2), 123-150.
  • https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368717690563
  • Ferrando, P.J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en sociología. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 18-33.
  • Figueiredo, B. (2014). Social disorganization theory and crime. Searching for the determinants of crime at the community level. Latin American Research Review, 49 (3). 218- 230.
  • Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: evidence against 5-points scales. Journal of usability studies, 5 (3), 104-110.
  • Frías-Navarro, D., & Pascual-Soler, M. (2012). Prácticas del análisis factorial exploratorio (AFE) en la investigación sobre conductas del consumidor y marketing. Suma Psicológica, 19 (1), 45-58.
  • Gau, J.M., & Pratt, T.C. (2008). Broken windows or windows dressing? Citizens’ (in)hability to tell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminology & public policy, 7(2). 163-194.
  • González-Alonso, J.A. (2015). Cálculo e interpretación del alfa de Cronbach para el caso de validación de la consistencia interna de un cuestionario con dos posibles escalas tipo Likert. Revista Publicando, 2 (1), 62-77.
  • Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2004). Análisis Multivariante. Madrid: Pearson.
  • Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (1), 77-93.
  • Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency. An appraisal of analytic models . University of Chicago Press.
  • Kubrin, C.E., & Mioduszewski, M.D. (2019). Social Disorganization Theory: Past, Present and future. In M.D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. Penly Hall & A.J. Lizotte (Eds.). como Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 197-212). Springer.
  • Leung, S. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37 (4), 412-421, https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.
  • Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P.J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods 38, 88–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753
  • Lowerkamp, C.T., Cullen, F.T., & Pratt, T.C. (2003). Replicating Sampson and Groves test of Social Disorganization Theory: revisiting a criminological classic. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40 (4), 351-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803256077
  • Makridis, C. A., & Wu, C. (2021). How social capital helps communities weather the COVID-19 pandemic. PloS one, 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245135
  • Mardia, K.V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewnees and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57 (3), 519-530.
  • Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P.E., & Liu, J. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder and fear. Criminology, 39 (2). 293-320.
  • Matas, A. (2018). Diseño del formato de escalas tipo Likert: un estado de la cuestión. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 20 (1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2018.20.1.1347
  • Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert-scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 (6), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033601
  • Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39 (3), 517-558.
  • Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGrawHill.
  • Oliden, P.E., & Zumbo, B.D. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenadas. Psicothema, 20 (4), 896-901.
  • Ortiz García, J. & Rufo Rey, M.A. (2020). Percepción de inseguridad en los barrios y eficacia colectiva: un estudio de caso. Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho: Universidad de Extremadura, 36, 757-795. https://doi.org/10.17398/2695-7728.36.757
  • Padilla, M. A., & Divers, J. (2016). A comparison of composite reliability estimators: coefficient omega confidence intervals in the current literature. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76 (3), 436-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415593776
  • Pakmehr, S., Yazdanpanah, M., & Baradaran, M. (2020). How collective efficacy makes a difference in responses to water shortage due to climate change in southwest Iran. Land Use Policy, 99, 104798.
  • Pedrero-Pérez, E.J., López-Durán, A., & Fernández-del Río, E. (2012). Dimensiones Factoriales del cuestionario de Millon (MCMI-II) en adictos a sustancias. Psicothema, 24 (4), 661-667.
  • Pérez, E.R., & Medrano, L. (2010). Análisis Factorial Exploratorio: bases conceptuales y metodológicas. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2 (1), 58-66.
  • Pizarro, K., & Martínez, O. (2020). Análisis factorial exploratorio mediante el uso de las medidas de adecuación muestral kmo y esfericidad de bartlett para determinar factores principales. Journal of Science and Research, 5, 903 - 924. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4453224
  • Porras, J. C. (2016). Comparación de pruebas de normalidad multivariada. Anales Científicos, 77 (2), 141-146. https://doi.org/10.21704/ac.v77i2.483
  • Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. (2005). Assesing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A Meta-Analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373-450.
  • Ramos, M., & Plata, W. (2015). Correlación Policórica en el Análisis de Factores con Variables Ordinales. ESPOL, 13 (1), 37-42.
  • Sampson, R.J. (1991). Linking the micro- and macrolevel dimensions of community social organization. Social Forces, 70 (1). 43-64.
  • Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect . University of Chicago Press.
  • Sampson, R.J. (2013). The place of context: A theory and strategy for criminology’s hards problems. Criminology, 51(1). 1-33.
  • Sampson, R. J. (2017). Collective Efficacy Theory: Lessons Learned and Directions for Future Inquiry. In. F.T. Cullen, J.P.Wright and K.R. Blevins (eds.). Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (pp.149–167). Transaction Publisher .
  • Sampson, R.J. (2018). Social ecollogy and collective efficacy. En. S. Henry. (Dir.). The Essential Criminology Reader (pp. 132-140). Routledge.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and Crime: testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (4). 774-802.
  • Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhood and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
  • Sampson, R.J, & Graif, C. (2009). Neighborhood social capital as differential social organization. Resident and leadership dimensions. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(11). 1579-1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276420933152
  • Sandoval-Diaz, J., Neumann, P., & Rey Clericus, R. (2021). Adaptación y validación preliminar de la Escala teoría cultural de cosmovisiones ambientales en población chilena. Revista. CES Psicología, 14 (1), 16-35.
  • Schnell, C. (2017). Exploring “the criminology of place”. in Chicago: A multi-level analysis of the spatial variation in violent crime across micro-places and neighborhoods [doctoral thesis, Rutgers University]. Rutgers University Community Repository: https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/54150/
  • Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
  • Sutherland, E.H. (2018). Rejecting individualism. The Chicago School. In J.R. Lilly, F.T. Cullen and R.A. Ball (eds.). Criminological theory: Context and consequences (pp. 33-51). Sage publications.
  • Uchida, C.D., Swatt, ML., Solomon, SE., & Varano, S. (2014). Neighborhoods and crime: collective efficacy and social cohesion in Miami-Dade County . Executive Summary, Final Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
  • Ventura-León, J.L., & Caycho-Rodríguez, T. (2017). El coeficiente Omega: un método alternativo para la estimación de la confiabilidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 15 (1), 625-627.
  • Weisburd, D., Groff, E.E., & Ming Yang, S. (2012). The Criminology of Place: street segments and our understanding of the crime problem . Oxford University Press.
  • Whyte, W. F. (1941). Corner Boys: a study of clique behavior. The American Journal of Sociology, 46 (5), 647-664.
  • Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Zhang, Y., Xiong, Y., Lee, T. J., Ye, M., & Nunkoo, R. (2021). Sociocultural sustainability and the formation of social capital from community-based tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 60 (3), 656-669.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet