Loading…
A comparison and analysis of seven gun law permissiveness scales
Due to the differences in the way gun law permissiveness scales were created and speculation about the politically motivated underpinnings of the various scales, there have been questions about their reliability. We compared seven gun law permissiveness scales, varying by type and sources, for an en...
Saved in:
Published in: | Injury epidemiology 2021-01, Vol.8 (1), p.2-2, Article 2 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-5c887c2c69c7e9b7559c2bd5fee73ffab17d5ae30770a9ddad4274722de87d8c3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-5c887c2c69c7e9b7559c2bd5fee73ffab17d5ae30770a9ddad4274722de87d8c3 |
container_end_page | 2 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 2 |
container_title | Injury epidemiology |
container_volume | 8 |
creator | Reeping, Paul M Morrison, Christopher N Rudolph, Kara E Goyal, Monika K Branas, Charles C |
description | Due to the differences in the way gun law permissiveness scales were created and speculation about the politically motivated underpinnings of the various scales, there have been questions about their reliability.
We compared seven gun law permissiveness scales, varying by type and sources, for an enhanced understanding of the extent to which choice of a gun law permissiveness scale could affect studies related to gun violence outcomes in the United States. Specifically, we evaluated seven different scales: two rankings, two counts, and three scores, arising from a range of sources. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for each pair of scales compared. Cronbach's standardized alpha and Guttman's lambda were calculated to evaluate the relative reliability of the scales, and we re-calculated Cronbach's alpha after systematically omitting each scale to assess whether the omitted scale contributed to lower internal consistency between scales. Factor analysis was used to determine single factor loadings and estimates. We also assessed associations between permissiveness of gun laws and total firearm deaths and suicides in multivariable regression analyses.
All pairs of scales were highly correlated (average Spearman's correlation coefficient r = 0.77) and had high relative reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.968, Guttman's lambda = 0.975). All scales load onto a single factor. The choice of scale did not meaningfully change the parameter estimates for the associations between permissiveness of gun laws and gun deaths and suicides.
Gun law permissiveness scales are highly correlated despite any perceived political agenda, and the choice of gun law permissiveness scale has little effect on study conclusions related to gun violence outcomes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s40621-020-00296-5 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_69f53a5f4e6a458a89bfc45f93a7b44c</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_69f53a5f4e6a458a89bfc45f93a7b44c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2478776532</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-5c887c2c69c7e9b7559c2bd5fee73ffab17d5ae30770a9ddad4274722de87d8c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkV1rFTEQhhdRbKn9A17IgjferM33ZG_EUtQWCt7odZhNJsc97Nkck7OV_nvTbi2tgSHDzDsPybxN85azj5xbc1YUM4J3TLCOMdGbTr9ojgXvoePA1csn-VFzWsqWMcaF1mD16-ZISqVrbo6bz-etT7s95rGkucU51MDptoylTbEtdENzu1nmdsI_7Z7ybixlrDUqpS0eJypvmlcRp0KnD_dJ8_Prlx8Xl931929XF-fXnddGHjrtrQUvvOk9UD-A1r0XQ9CRCGSMOHAIGkkyAIZ9CBiUAAVCBLIQrJcnzdXKDQm3bp_HHeZbl3B094WUNw7zYfQTOdNHLVFHRQaVtmj7IXqlYy8RBqXuWJ9W1n4ZdhQ8zYeM0zPo8848_nKbdOPAcmG0rYAPD4Ccfi9UDq4uxtM04UxpKU4osABGS1Gl7_-TbtOS645XlYR6ZFWJVeVzKiVTfHwMZ-7Ob7f67arf7t5vp-vQu6ffeBz55678CzJ6pms</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2478377773</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison and analysis of seven gun law permissiveness scales</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Reeping, Paul M ; Morrison, Christopher N ; Rudolph, Kara E ; Goyal, Monika K ; Branas, Charles C</creator><creatorcontrib>Reeping, Paul M ; Morrison, Christopher N ; Rudolph, Kara E ; Goyal, Monika K ; Branas, Charles C</creatorcontrib><description>Due to the differences in the way gun law permissiveness scales were created and speculation about the politically motivated underpinnings of the various scales, there have been questions about their reliability.
We compared seven gun law permissiveness scales, varying by type and sources, for an enhanced understanding of the extent to which choice of a gun law permissiveness scale could affect studies related to gun violence outcomes in the United States. Specifically, we evaluated seven different scales: two rankings, two counts, and three scores, arising from a range of sources. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for each pair of scales compared. Cronbach's standardized alpha and Guttman's lambda were calculated to evaluate the relative reliability of the scales, and we re-calculated Cronbach's alpha after systematically omitting each scale to assess whether the omitted scale contributed to lower internal consistency between scales. Factor analysis was used to determine single factor loadings and estimates. We also assessed associations between permissiveness of gun laws and total firearm deaths and suicides in multivariable regression analyses.
All pairs of scales were highly correlated (average Spearman's correlation coefficient r = 0.77) and had high relative reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.968, Guttman's lambda = 0.975). All scales load onto a single factor. The choice of scale did not meaningfully change the parameter estimates for the associations between permissiveness of gun laws and gun deaths and suicides.
Gun law permissiveness scales are highly correlated despite any perceived political agenda, and the choice of gun law permissiveness scale has little effect on study conclusions related to gun violence outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2197-1714</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2197-1714</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s40621-020-00296-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33455576</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Firearm laws & regulations ; Firearms ; Gun policy ; Gun violence ; Original Contribution ; Policy analysis</subject><ispartof>Injury epidemiology, 2021-01, Vol.8 (1), p.2-2, Article 2</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-5c887c2c69c7e9b7559c2bd5fee73ffab17d5ae30770a9ddad4274722de87d8c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-5c887c2c69c7e9b7559c2bd5fee73ffab17d5ae30770a9ddad4274722de87d8c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1703-6379</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2478377773/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2478377773?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33455576$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reeping, Paul M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrison, Christopher N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rudolph, Kara E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyal, Monika K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branas, Charles C</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison and analysis of seven gun law permissiveness scales</title><title>Injury epidemiology</title><addtitle>Inj Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Due to the differences in the way gun law permissiveness scales were created and speculation about the politically motivated underpinnings of the various scales, there have been questions about their reliability.
We compared seven gun law permissiveness scales, varying by type and sources, for an enhanced understanding of the extent to which choice of a gun law permissiveness scale could affect studies related to gun violence outcomes in the United States. Specifically, we evaluated seven different scales: two rankings, two counts, and three scores, arising from a range of sources. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for each pair of scales compared. Cronbach's standardized alpha and Guttman's lambda were calculated to evaluate the relative reliability of the scales, and we re-calculated Cronbach's alpha after systematically omitting each scale to assess whether the omitted scale contributed to lower internal consistency between scales. Factor analysis was used to determine single factor loadings and estimates. We also assessed associations between permissiveness of gun laws and total firearm deaths and suicides in multivariable regression analyses.
All pairs of scales were highly correlated (average Spearman's correlation coefficient r = 0.77) and had high relative reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.968, Guttman's lambda = 0.975). All scales load onto a single factor. The choice of scale did not meaningfully change the parameter estimates for the associations between permissiveness of gun laws and gun deaths and suicides.
Gun law permissiveness scales are highly correlated despite any perceived political agenda, and the choice of gun law permissiveness scale has little effect on study conclusions related to gun violence outcomes.</description><subject>Firearm laws & regulations</subject><subject>Firearms</subject><subject>Gun policy</subject><subject>Gun violence</subject><subject>Original Contribution</subject><subject>Policy analysis</subject><issn>2197-1714</issn><issn>2197-1714</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkV1rFTEQhhdRbKn9A17IgjferM33ZG_EUtQWCt7odZhNJsc97Nkck7OV_nvTbi2tgSHDzDsPybxN85azj5xbc1YUM4J3TLCOMdGbTr9ojgXvoePA1csn-VFzWsqWMcaF1mD16-ZISqVrbo6bz-etT7s95rGkucU51MDptoylTbEtdENzu1nmdsI_7Z7ybixlrDUqpS0eJypvmlcRp0KnD_dJ8_Prlx8Xl931929XF-fXnddGHjrtrQUvvOk9UD-A1r0XQ9CRCGSMOHAIGkkyAIZ9CBiUAAVCBLIQrJcnzdXKDQm3bp_HHeZbl3B094WUNw7zYfQTOdNHLVFHRQaVtmj7IXqlYy8RBqXuWJ9W1n4ZdhQ8zYeM0zPo8848_nKbdOPAcmG0rYAPD4Ccfi9UDq4uxtM04UxpKU4osABGS1Gl7_-TbtOS645XlYR6ZFWJVeVzKiVTfHwMZ-7Ob7f67arf7t5vp-vQu6ffeBz55678CzJ6pms</recordid><startdate>20210118</startdate><enddate>20210118</enddate><creator>Reeping, Paul M</creator><creator>Morrison, Christopher N</creator><creator>Rudolph, Kara E</creator><creator>Goyal, Monika K</creator><creator>Branas, Charles C</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1703-6379</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210118</creationdate><title>A comparison and analysis of seven gun law permissiveness scales</title><author>Reeping, Paul M ; Morrison, Christopher N ; Rudolph, Kara E ; Goyal, Monika K ; Branas, Charles C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-5c887c2c69c7e9b7559c2bd5fee73ffab17d5ae30770a9ddad4274722de87d8c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Firearm laws & regulations</topic><topic>Firearms</topic><topic>Gun policy</topic><topic>Gun violence</topic><topic>Original Contribution</topic><topic>Policy analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reeping, Paul M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrison, Christopher N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rudolph, Kara E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyal, Monika K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branas, Charles C</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Open Access: DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Injury epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reeping, Paul M</au><au>Morrison, Christopher N</au><au>Rudolph, Kara E</au><au>Goyal, Monika K</au><au>Branas, Charles C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison and analysis of seven gun law permissiveness scales</atitle><jtitle>Injury epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Inj Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2021-01-18</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>2</spage><epage>2</epage><pages>2-2</pages><artnum>2</artnum><issn>2197-1714</issn><eissn>2197-1714</eissn><abstract>Due to the differences in the way gun law permissiveness scales were created and speculation about the politically motivated underpinnings of the various scales, there have been questions about their reliability.
We compared seven gun law permissiveness scales, varying by type and sources, for an enhanced understanding of the extent to which choice of a gun law permissiveness scale could affect studies related to gun violence outcomes in the United States. Specifically, we evaluated seven different scales: two rankings, two counts, and three scores, arising from a range of sources. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for each pair of scales compared. Cronbach's standardized alpha and Guttman's lambda were calculated to evaluate the relative reliability of the scales, and we re-calculated Cronbach's alpha after systematically omitting each scale to assess whether the omitted scale contributed to lower internal consistency between scales. Factor analysis was used to determine single factor loadings and estimates. We also assessed associations between permissiveness of gun laws and total firearm deaths and suicides in multivariable regression analyses.
All pairs of scales were highly correlated (average Spearman's correlation coefficient r = 0.77) and had high relative reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.968, Guttman's lambda = 0.975). All scales load onto a single factor. The choice of scale did not meaningfully change the parameter estimates for the associations between permissiveness of gun laws and gun deaths and suicides.
Gun law permissiveness scales are highly correlated despite any perceived political agenda, and the choice of gun law permissiveness scale has little effect on study conclusions related to gun violence outcomes.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>33455576</pmid><doi>10.1186/s40621-020-00296-5</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1703-6379</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2197-1714 |
ispartof | Injury epidemiology, 2021-01, Vol.8 (1), p.2-2, Article 2 |
issn | 2197-1714 2197-1714 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_69f53a5f4e6a458a89bfc45f93a7b44c |
source | Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central |
subjects | Firearm laws & regulations Firearms Gun policy Gun violence Original Contribution Policy analysis |
title | A comparison and analysis of seven gun law permissiveness scales |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T17%3A56%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20and%20analysis%20of%20seven%20gun%20law%20permissiveness%20scales&rft.jtitle=Injury%20epidemiology&rft.au=Reeping,%20Paul%20M&rft.date=2021-01-18&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=2&rft.epage=2&rft.pages=2-2&rft.artnum=2&rft.issn=2197-1714&rft.eissn=2197-1714&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s40621-020-00296-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2478776532%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-5c887c2c69c7e9b7559c2bd5fee73ffab17d5ae30770a9ddad4274722de87d8c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2478377773&rft_id=info:pmid/33455576&rfr_iscdi=true |