Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Collective Efficacy and Police Satisfaction

Rhineberger-Dunn, Gayle; Carlson, Susan M.

doi:10.1080/0735648x.2009.9721264

Cited by 35 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach greatly improved model fit: X 2 = 38.805, p > 0.05; RMSEA = 0.020; CFI = 0.999. Rhineberger‐Dunn and Carlson's () results, along with the result of this study, suggest that additional research is needed to understand the best ways to apply the collective efficacy measurement scale to inform community practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Results of a study by Rhineberger‐Dun and Carlson () raise questions about the validity of the commonly used collective efficacy variables to represent the latent constructs of social cohesion and social control. Rhineberger‐Dunn and Carlson () sought to explore the relationship between collective efficacy and police satisfaction. They applied confirmatory factor analysis to inform their decision about how best to structure the collective efficacy model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The model fit was adequate, but not ideal: X 2 = 1,724.242, p < 0.05; RMSEA = 0.075; CFI = 0.953. After exploring the residual covariance matrix, Rhineberger‐Dunn and Carlson () removed the questions about neighbors (a) sharing values from the social cohesion construct and (b) engaging to support a local firehouse that is facing budget cuts from the social control construct. This approach greatly improved model fit: X 2 = 38.805, p > 0.05; RMSEA = 0.020; CFI = 0.999.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Neighborhood collective efficacy and collective action: The role of civic engagement

Carbone

McMillin

2018

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory suggests that by strengthening collective efficacy among neighbors, neighborhoods can more effectively engage in collective action. The research linking the two components of collective efficacy-social cohesion and social control-with collective action is limited. This study uses structural equation modeling with a nationally representative sample from the United States Census Bureau's American Housing Survey (N = 22,106) to analyze these relationships. This analysis finds that neither component of collective efficacy is directly associated with collective action. Instead, social cohesion is negatively, directly associated with civic engagement, social control is positively directly associated with civic engagement, and civic engagement is positively associated with collective action. Social cohesion and social control are indirectly associated with collective action when including civic engagement. Understanding the associations between collective efficacy, civic engagement, and collective action is informative for understanding effective and efficient community participation to facilitate change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neighborhood collective efficacy and collective action: The role of civic engagement

Carbone

McMillin

2018

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The psychology branch of collective efficacy research typically does not combine a general measure of cohesion as a component of the task-specific construct of collective efficacy, but instead considers that cohesion may enable collective efficacy (Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, and Zazanis 1995). And recent neighborhood studies have shown empirically that collective efficacy and cohesion/trust appear to be distinct constructs using data from Chicago (Rhineberger-Dunn and Carlson 2009) and Brisbane, Australia (Wickes, Hipp, Sargeant, and Homel 2013), and another study conceptualized them as distinct constructs (Foster-Fishman, Collins, and Pierce 2013). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective efficacy: How is it conceptualized, how is it measured, and does it really matter for understanding perceived neighborhood crime and disorder?

Hipp

2016

Journal of Criminal Justice

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on the insights of the self-efficacy literature, this study highlights that collective efficacy is a collective perception that comes from a process. This study emphasizes that 1) there is updating, as there are feedback effects from success or failure by the group to the perception of collective efficacy, and 2) this updating raises the importance of accounting for members' degree of uncertainty regarding neighborhood collective efficacy. Using a sample of 113 block groups in three rural North Carolina counties, this study finds evidence of updating as neighborhoods perceiving more crime or disorder reported less collective efficacy at the next time point. Furthermore, collective efficacy was only associated with lower perceived disorder at the next time point when it occurred in highly cohesive neighborhoods. Finally, neighborhoods with more perceived disorder and uncertainty regarding collective efficacy at one time point had lower levels of collective efficacy at the next time point, illustrating the importance of uncertainty along with updating.

show abstract

“…Three questions regarding perceptions of the neighborhood's ability to respond with informal social control against social disorder asked, "Please tell me how likely or unlikely it is that your neighbors would step in and do something in each situation: 1) if kids are seen hanging out; 2) if kids were doing graffiti; 3) if kids were showing disrespect to adults." We create separate measures for cohesion and expectations of informal social control rather than combining them into a single measure, given existing theoretical arguments for their separation (Hipp 2016;Wickes, Hipp, Sargeant et al 2013), as well as empirical evidence from studies showing that these are distinct constructs (Bellair and Browning 2010;Browning et al 2004;Horne 2004;Rhineberger-Dunn and Carlson 2009). …”

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disagreement in Assessing Neighboring and Collective Efficacy: The Role of Social Distance

Hipp

Williams

Boessen

2018

Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas existing research typically treats variability in residents' reports of collective efficacy and neighboring as measurement error, the authors consider such variability as of substantive interest in itself. This variability may indicate disagreement among residents with implications for the neighborhood collectivity. The authors propose using a general measure of social distance based on several social dimensions (rather than measures based on a single dimension such as racial/ethnic heterogeneity or income inequality) to help understand this variability in assessments. The authors use data from wave I (2001) of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (n = 3,570) to aggregate respondents into egohoods of two different sizes: quarter-mile and half-mile radii. Consistent with expectations, neighborhoods with higher levels of general social distance have higher variability in reports of neighboring and the two components of collective efficacy, cohesion and informal social control.

show abstract

Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Collective Efficacy and Police Satisfaction

Cited by 35 publications

References 12 publications

Neighborhood collective efficacy and collective action: The role of civic engagement

Neighborhood collective efficacy and collective action: The role of civic engagement

Collective efficacy: How is it conceptualized, how is it measured, and does it really matter for understanding perceived neighborhood crime and disorder?

Disagreement in Assessing Neighboring and Collective Efficacy: The Role of Social Distance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About