Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: A Comparison of Logistic Regression and Classification Tree Analysis for Behavioural Case Linkage
Authors: Tonkin, Matthew
Woodhams, J.
Bull, Ray
Bond, John W.
Santtila, P.
First Published: 7-Jun-2012
Publisher: Wiley
Citation: Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2012, 9 (3), pp. 235-258
Abstract: Much previous research on behavioural case linkage has used binary logistic regression to build predictive models that can discriminate between linked and unlinked offences. However, classification tree analysis has recently been proposed as a potential alternative owing to its ability to build user-friendly and transparent predictive models. Building on previous research, the current study compares the relative ability of logistic regression analysis and classification tree analysis to construct predictive models for the purposes of case linkage. Two samples are utilised in this study: a sample of 376 serial car thefts committed in the UK and a sample of 160 serial residential burglaries committed in Finland. In both datasets, logistic regression and classification tree models achieve comparable levels of discrimination accuracy, but the classification tree models demonstrate problems in terms of reliability or usability that the logistic regression models do not. These findings suggest that future research is needed before classification tree analysis can be considered a viable alternative to logistic regression in behavioural case linkage.
DOI Link: 10.1002/jip.1367
ISSN: 1544-4759
eISSN: 1544-4767
Version: Post-print
Status: Peer-reviewed
Type: Journal Article
Rights: Archived with reference to SHERPA/RoMEO and publisher website.
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, Dept. of Criminology

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Tonkin, Woodhams, Bull, Bond, & Santtila (2012).pdfPost-review (final submitted author manuscript)707.94 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.