1

Running Head: FIXING THE VALIDITY CONCERN OF THE NISMART STUDY

Fixing the Validity Concern of the NISMART Study

Cailin Frusti
Professor Griffor
Criminal Justice Research Methods
Concordia University Ann Arbor
18 April 2016

Abstract
 2

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children (NISMART) published a study in 2002 regarding the national estimates and

characteristics of children abducted by a family member based on their study and their results.

The aim of this study is to fix the validity concern of the NISMART study by following up with

the respondents statement and verify with the family member that the incident did occur. A set

number of households will be called via the telephone and will be asked a series of questions

similar to those of the NISMART study. A follow up phone interview will be conducted to gain

more information about the event and the offender as well. Then, with consent, the alleged

offender will be contacted and asked similar questions to fix the validity concern of the

NISMART study. It is predicted that the data published by the NISMART study will be

inaccurate due to this fixing of the validity concern. In addition, it is predicted that the numbers

that concluded the NISMART study would be decreased had the other family member accused of

abducting the child been contacted as well to verify the initial respondents statement.

Introduction
 3

Child abductions happen every day across the globe; more specifically, child abductions

by a family member. These types of child abductions have become more and more popular due to

the growing number of divorces and visitation rights and regulations. Many research articles

have showed who is at the most risk for a child abduction by a family member as well as the

characteristics of those who abduct and are abducted. However, research also found that many

people do not realize that their child was under the legal definition, abducted. The broad scope

definition defines child abduction by a family member as,

the taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a custody order, a

decree, or other legitimate custodial rights, where the taking or keeping involved some

element of concealment, flight, or intent to deprive a lawful custodian indefinitely of

custodial privileges (Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlack, 2002).

Parents typically think of the stereotypical child abduction, not realizing that if the abductor

violates a custodial agreement. Even if it is just keeping a child longer than they were supposed

to, it falls under a child abduction by a family member. The researchers of NISMART (National

Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children) specifically

focused their study on making sure that the parents they interviewed on the phone completely

understood that their child was in fact abducted by asking specific questions that may make them

remember a time where such an incident had happened (Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlack, 2002).

Other studies made note of the differences between the broad definition, and the policy focal

definition, otherwise known as the stereotypical definition of a child abduction by a family

member (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Plass, 1997). One validity concern with the NISMART is that

NISMART researchers did not attempt to verify respondent statements (Hammer, Finkelhor,

and Sedlack, 2002). In this study, we seek to fix this validity concern by following up with the
 4

respondent statements and to settle whether such cases of respondents were indeed victims of

their child(ren) being abducted by a family member, or whether it was merely a case of

miscommunication or a misreport by the initial respondent.

Literature Reviews
In 2002, through the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and

Thrownaway Children (NISMART, which is associated with the U.S. Department of Justice,

released a study called Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and

Characteristics. The purpose of this study was to compile a list of estimates and characteristics

for incidents where children are abducted by a family member. This includes, but is not limited

to, the average characteristics or the abducted children and their taker, and an estimate as to how

many children are taken by a family member. It also aims to show how many people have been

victims of such incidents, but not aware that they were a victim under the broad scope definition

of a child abduction by a family member. This study was conducted using computer-assisted

telephone interviews. A total of 16,111 interviews were conducted, in which the person

interviewed was asked a series of questions regarding whether or not their child had ever been

abducted by a family member. Then the eligible people received a follow-up interview for more

specific details about the incident. The results of this study found that an estimated 203,900

children had been abducted by a family member, with 117,200 of these, the caretaker did not

know where the child was, became alarmed for at least an hour, and looked for the child

(NISMART, 2002). An estimated 56,500 children had been reported missing to the authorities.

Peggy S. Plass, David Finkelhor, and Gerald T. Hotaling published a study in 1997 titled

Risk Factors for Family Abduction: Demographic and Family Interaction Characteristics. The

purpose of this study was to look at data drawn from a national sample of families regarding
 5

children abducted by a family member, and compile a list of risk factors for those who may fall

victim of such a crime. The method for this study was to look at the original NISMART report

and the results of this study. With that data, they compiled a list of risk factors, such as family

size and education level of the household, to make a chart of these characteristics as risk factors.

The results of this study were that race, age of children, family size, and incidence of violence

in the family appear to bear on the risk of experiencing a family abduction event (Finkelhor,

Hotaling, and Plass, 1997).

In 1991, David Finkelhor, Gerald Hotaling, and Andrea Sedlak published an article called

Children Abducted by Family Members: A National Household Survey of Incidence and

Episode Characteristics. The purpose of this study was to look at the characteristics of both the

broad scope and focal policy definitions of a child abduction by a family member and compare

their results. They did so by looking at the original NISMART results and interpreting their

information and creating graphs and charts corresponding to that data. The results of this study

were that the percentages of the broad scope definition of a child abduction by a family member

were much higher than that of the policy focal definition. They created estimates for around how

many policy focal child abductions by a family member occurred in comparison to those of the

broad scope definition. (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1991).

Methods

This study is going to be based off of reports made via the telephone. The surveys are

going to be conducted by the researchers who will initially call approximately 3,000 households

who fall under the category as at least one parent living with their children/child. They will be

identified by initially asking them questions regarding their household to determine whether they

fit into the category. While conducting the phone surveys, the researchers will ask a series of
 6

questions similar to those asked in the NISMART study, to determine whether or not the

individual households had been victims of a child abducted by a family member. A follow up

interview will be conducted by our researchers with the respondents who fit that category. After

the follow up interview, whose purpose is to gather more in depth information such as the childs

gender, age, and who abducted them, the researcher will gather the information from the

respondent regarding the alleged abductor. Step three in this study is to call the alleged abductor,

with consent, and ask the same set of questions used in the initial call with the parent claiming

their child was abducted. Prior to beginning questioning, however, we will explain the purpose

of the study to the person being interviewed and gain their consent to proceed to avoid any

ethical concerns. However, the difference will be that they ask if they have done anything such

as keeping the child in disagreement with the custodial agreement, as opposed to whether their

child had been held by someone else in violation with custody agreement. This will help sort

through any discrepancies between the accuser and the accused. Those who respond that they

had indeed did something that would technically be considered child abduction by a family

member will then receive a follow-up telephone survey, similar to the follow-up interview of the

accuser, to obtain more information on their background and the specifics of the incident. The

study will be based off of the results of these surveys.

For this experiment, multistage cluster sampling will be used. This form of sampling will

be used because it is impractical to compile a lengthy list of all of the characteristics that fit the

criteria for this study. For my study, it will be quite difficult to create a list of individuals who

have been victims of a child abduction by a family member, as many of these cases go

unreported. The victim often times does not realize that what has happened falls under the legal

definition of child abduction by a family member, so the crime goes unreported to the authorities.
 7

This is why multistage cluster sampling will be the form of sampling used in this study. In this

form of sampling, there is often a repetition of two stages: listing and sampling. By repeating this

over and over, this study can identify who has fallen victim to this crime and can better gather

their research instead of using another form of sampling. This will help narrow down the list and

find those who fall into the target population that is the aim of the study.

Anticipated Results

As a result of this study, it is predicted that the numbers produced by The National

Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) will

be altered. The results of this study will be decreased if the other family member accused of

abducting the child is contacted as well to verify the initial respondents statement. The number

of offenses that were reported overall will be decreased, but to narrow it down specifically, the

number of incidences where the caretaker noticed the child was missing but did not report it to

the authorities will be decreased. The incidences of a child abduction by a family member

reported to the proper authorities however, will not have as much as a dramatic decrease. These

incidences tend to fit more the policy focal definitions of a child abduction by a family member,

which are the more stereotypical abductions. These will not have such a dramatic decrease due to

their seriousness and the fact that these cases can be verified by the police departments of which

they were reported missing to. The vast majority of child abductions by a family member fall

under the category of the broad scope definition. This is where this study will show the most

change. These tend to be cases of miscommunications regarding the childs whereabouts and

who has legal custody over the child. By verifying with the individual accused of abducting the

child, this study can show whether or not the incident truly happened by fixing the validity

concern of the NISMART study.

 8

As a result of the number of caretaker missing cases decreasing, the statistics

associated with the original results concluded in the NISMART study will also be altered. These

include the characteristics of family abductions, such as the childs location prior to the episode

and the individual characteristics of the child who was said to have been abducted by a family

member. If the overall number of child abductions by a family member in the broad scope

definition are decreased, the estimated numbers of each of these characteristics will also be

decreased as a result.

Discussion

In this study, we sought to address the validity concern of the NISMART study by

following up with the respondent statements and to settle whether such cases reported by

respondents were indeed victims of their child(ren) being abducted by a family member, or

whether it was merely a case of miscommunication or a misreport by the initial respondent. It

was predicted that the numbers that concluded the NISMART study would be decreased had the

other family member accused of abducting the child been contacted as well to verify the initial

respondents statement. If this hypothesis is proven true, the Criminal Justice field would greatly

benefit.

If proven true, the data presented in the NISMART study could more accurately portray

the correct data. Studies based on the NISMART study which take the data and interpret it could

be more accurate and depict the real numbers. If proven true, in addition, would cause

inconsistencies with existing studies. Most studies published relating to child abductions by a

family member are based on the information published in the NISMART study, and therefore,

their studies in addition to the NISMART study would be skewed. However, it would benefit the

studies published regarding child abductions by a family member by eliminating the validity
 9

concern of the NISMART study by following up with the respondents statement. The next steps

for research would be to take the information gathered as a part of this study, and to create more

accurate data regarding the numbers of offenses, characteristics of offenders, and who is at the

most risk.

However, there is also a possibility that this hypothesis could be proven false. This does

not necessarily mean that the study did not accomplish anything or that the study should not have

been performed. A hypothesis proven false could also be very beneficial to the criminal justice

field. By being proven false, the study would aid in eliminating the validity concern of the

NISMART study. There would be reduced concern regarding following up the initial

respondents statement, which would further enhance their published data. This would be

consistent with other published studies as well. Due to the fact that a majority of studies

published about child abductions by a family member are published using this data, the data they

used would be proven to be accurate. If this hypothesis is proven false, there is also a next step

for the research. The findings of this study would be published in an article to show that the

respondents statements had been verified and that the research published in the NISMART study

is valid.

Conclusion

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway

Children (NISMART), published a study in 2002 regarding the national estimates and

characteristics of children abducted by a family member based on their study and their results.

The aim of this study is to fix the validity concern of the NISMART study, which will follow up

with the respondents statement and verify with the family member that the incident did occur.

We will study the accurate number of children abducted by family members by taking the
 10

NISMART study one step further and contacting the alleged offender, with consent, and ask

them similar questions to those of the original respondent in order to fix the validity concern of

the NISMART study. The series of follow up interviews will alter the results of the NISMART

study, specifically in the area of children abducted by a family member but not reported to the

authorities.

The literature of the NISMART study tells us that an estimated 203,900 children had been

abducted by a family member, with 117,200 of those, the caretaker did not know where the

child was, became alarmed for at least an hour, and looked for the child and an estimated 56,500

children had been reported missing to the authorities (NISMART, 2002). This study being

proposed is important to the criminal justice field because it will provide more accurate data than

that portrayed in the NISMART study. This could alter the information presented in studies that

have been published using the information and data provided in the NISMART study, and could

potentially be the basis for future studies to be performed in this field. With more accurate data

than that provided by the NISMART study, this study could help narrow down the number of

children abducted by a family member, and could also help create a profile for those who are at

the most risk of being a victim and what measures could be taken to prevent such an event from

occurring.

Works Cited
 11

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., & Sedlak, A. (1991). Children abducted by family members: A

national household survey of incidence and episode characteristics. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 805-817.

Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlack, A. J. (2002). Children Abducted by Family Members:

National Estimates and Characteristics. NISMART Series Bulletin.

Plass, Peggy S., David Finkelhor, and Gerald T. Hotaling. "Risk factors for family abduction:

Demographic and family interaction characteristics." Journal of Family Violence 12.3

(1997): 333-348.