ABOUT THE SURVEY
Statistics presented in this article are based on data collected as part of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010-11 Personal Fraud Survey. The Personal Fraud Survey was run as a module within the broader Crime Victimisation Survey, which was conducted from July 2010 to June 2011 as part of the Multipurpose Household Survey (MPHS). The MPHS is conducted each financial year throughout Australia from July to June as a supplement to the ABS’ monthly Labour Force Survey (LFS) and is designed to provide statistics for a number of self-contained topics. For more information about the scope, coverage, and data collection methodology of the MPHS please refer to the explanatory notes in Personal Fraud, 2010-11 (cat. no. 4528.0).
The 2010-11 Personal Fraud Survey was the second national survey of personal fraud in Australia conducted by the ABS, with the first conducted in 2007. One randomly selected person per household aged 15 years and over was asked about their experiences of personal fraud, providing information about incidents that occurred over a twelve month period prior to the date of interview (except for identity theft where people were asked if they have ever been a victim of identity theft in the last 12 months, two years and five years). Respondents were asked about their experiences of identity fraud (including credit or bank card fraud and identity theft) and a selected range of scams, including: lotteries, pyramid schemes, chain letters, fake notifications or offers from a bank or financial institution, fake notifications or offers from an established business, requests to send bank or financial details to another person, and other scams. Information about the characteristics of incidents of personal fraud and the socio-demographic details of victims and non-victims was also collected. All identity theft incidents that are referred to in the article are incidents from the last five years, as incidents in the last 12 months had low prevalence rates and high relative standard errors.
As a sample survey, the Crime Victimisation Survey is subject to both sampling and non-sampling error. Sampling error is the difference between the published estimates, derived from a sample of people, and the value that would have been produced if the total population (as defined for the scope of the survey) had been included in the survey. Sampling error is measured by the relative standard error (RSE) of the estimates. Non-sampling error is caused by factors other than those related to sampling methodology, such as response errors in reporting by respondents. This could be due to factors such as respondents misunderstanding survey questions, or including events that occurred prior to the reference period. For more information about statistical error and related concepts, please refer to Understanding Statistics on the ABS website.
A statistical significance test for a comparison between estimates was performed to determine whether it was likely that there was a difference between corresponding population characteristics. All comparisons within the article have been tested for statistical significance at the 95% confidence interval, and only data with relative standard errors of less than 25% has been included in the analysis. All differences mentioned to in this article were statistically significant at this level, and only statistically significant differences between socio-demographic categories are reported. Due to high relative standard errors and data quality issues, not all socio-demographic data was able to be analysed across all the different fraud types. For more information on the statistical concepts and methodology underpinning the Personal Fraud Survey, please refer to the explanatory and technical notes in Personal Fraud, 2010-11 (cat. no. 4528.0).
Print Page
Print All