Reconciling questions about dichotomizing variables in criminal justice research

Purpose: Despite accumulating evidence against the practice of artificial dichotomization, its continued use among criminal justice researchers indicates that there are still unresolved questions about its appropriateness. Farrington and Loeber (2000) provided a discussion of how these issues impact research on delinquency, and many researchers have cited their article as a justification for dichotomization within the field of criminal justice. In the current study, we examine the reasons why researchers have cited Farrington and Loeber as a mechanism for answering some unresolved questions about whether and when dichotomization may be justified. Methods: We used a forward citation search in PsycInfo to locate all articles citing Farrington and Loeber (2000) in support of dichotomization. Results: This search identified 126 articles which provided a total of 191 reasons supporting dichotomization. We explore these reasons, discussing whether they are consistent with evidence from simulation-based analyses and whether they are supported by existing statistical and methodological theory. Conclusions: Despite the large number of reasons for dichotomization provided by authors, we found very few that had empirical or theoretical support. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.