Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 962

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research

KING, GARY, MURRAY, CHRISTOPHER J. L., SALOMON, JOSHUA A., TANDON, AJAY·2004·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.1017/s000305540400108x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We address two long-standing survey research problems: measuring complicated concepts, such as political freedom and efficacy, that researchers define best with reference to examples; and what to do when respondents interpret identical questions in different ways. Scholars have long addressed these problems with approaches to reduce incomparability, such as writing more concrete questions—with uneven success. Our alternative is to measure directly response category incomparability and to correct for it. We measure incomparability via respondents' assessments, on the same scale as the self-assessments to be corrected, of hypothetical individuals described in short vignettes. Because the actual (but not necessarily reported) levels of the vignettes are invariant over respondents, variability in vignette answers reveals incomparability. Our corrections require either simple recodes or a statistical model designed to save survey administration costs. With analysis, simulations, and cross-national surveys, we show how response incomparability can drastically mislead survey researchers and how our approach can alleviate this problem.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s000305540400108x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Shealy R. , W. Stout .1993“A Model-Based Standardization Approach That Separates True Bias/DIF from Group Ability Differences and Detects Test Bias/DIF as Well as Item Bias/DIF.”Psychometrika 58 (June):159–94. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Heckman James , James Snyder .1997“Linear Probabilty Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.”Rand Journal of Economics 28 (Special Issue):142–89. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Groseclose Tim , Steven D. Levitt , James Snyder .1999“Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress.”American Political Science Review 93 (March):33–50. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Cantril Hadley .1965 The Pattern of Human Concerns.New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.
  5. Wolfe Rory , and David Firth .2002“Modelling Subjective Use of an Ordinal Reponse Scale in a Many Period Crossover Experiment.”Applied Statistics 51 (April):245–55. · DOI
  6. Brady Henry E. 1989“Factor and Ideal Point Analysis for Interpersonally Incomparable Data.”Psychometrika 542 (June):181–202. · DOI
  7. Alt James , Bo Sarlvik , Ivor Crewe .1976“Individual Differences Scaling and Group Attitude Structures: British Party Imagery in 1974.”Quality and Quantity 10 (October):297–320. · DOI
  8. King Gary .1997 A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. · DOI
  9. Aldrich John H. , Richard D. McKelvey .1977“A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections.”American Political Science Review 71 (March):111–30. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Clarkson Douglas B. 2000“A Random Effects Individual Difference Multidimensional Scaling Model.”Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 32 (January):337–47. · DOI
  11. Poole Keith R. Steven Daniels .1985“Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress, 1959–1980.”American Political Science Review 79 (June):373–99.
  12. Johnson Valen E. , and James H. Albert .1999 Ordinal Data Modeling.New York:Springer. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Torgerson Warren S. 1958 Theory and Methods of Scaling.New York:Wiley and Sons.
  14. Piquero Alex R. , Randall Macintosh .2002“The Validity of a Self-Reported Delinquency Scale: Comparisons across Gender, Age, Race, and Place of Residence.”Sociological Methods and Research 30 (May):492–529. · DOI
  15. Baum Lawrence .1988“Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.”American Political Science Review 82 (September):905–12. · DOI
  16. Groot Wim , Henriette Maassen van den Brink .1999“Job Satisfaction and Preference Drift.”Economics Letters 63 (June):363–67. · DOI
  17. Sen Amartya .2002“Health: Perception versus Observation.”British Medical Journal 324 (April 13):860–61. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Linden Wim Van Der , Ronald K. Hambleton , eds.1997 Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory.New York:Springer. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Przeworski Adam , and Henry Teune .1966–67“Equivalence in Cross-National Research.”Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (Winter):551–68. · DOI
  20. Stewart Anita L. , Anna Napoles-Springer .2000“Health-Related Quality of Life Assessments in Diverse Population Groups in the United States.”Medical Care 38 (September):II–102– II–124. · DOI
  21. Palfrey Thomas R. , Keith T. Poole .1987“The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voter Behavior.”American Journal of Political Science 31 (September):511–30. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Lewis Jeffrey B. 2001“Estimating Voter Preference Distri butions from Individual-Level Voting Data.”Political Analysis 9 (Summer):275–97. · DOI
  23. Poole Keith T. 1998“Recovering a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales.”American Journal of Political Science 42 (September):954–93. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Mead A. 1992“Review of the Development of Multidimensional Scaling Methods.”The Statistician 41 (April):27–39. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Cheung Gordon W. , Roger B. Rensvold .2000“Assessing Extreme and Acquiescence Response Sets in Cross-Cultural Research Using Structural Equations Modeling (with Comments).”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31 (March):187–212. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Gelman Andrew , and Gary King .1994“A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans.”American Journal of Political Science 38 (June):514–54. · DOI
  27. Martin Elizabeth A. , Pamela C. Campanelli , Robert E. Fay .1991“An Application of Rasch Analysis to Questionnaire Design: Using Vignettes to Study the Meaning of ‘Work’ in the Current Population Survey.”The Statistician 40 (September):265–76. · DOI
  28. Kahneman Daniel , David Schkade , and Cass R. Sunstein .1998“Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages.”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16 (April):49–86. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Suchman L. , B. Jordan .1990“Interactional Troubles in Face to Face Survey Interviews (with Comments and Rejoinder).”Journal of the American Statistical Association 85 (March):232–53. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Caroll J. D. , J. J. Chang .1970“Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling.”Psychometrika 35 (September):283–319. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Kinder Donald R. , Thomas R. Palfrey , eds.1993 Experimental Foundations of Political Science.Ann Arbor:University of\break Michigan Press. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Poole Keith , and Howard Rosenthal .1991“Patterns of Congressional Voting.”American Journal of Political Science 35 (February):228–78. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Sniderman Paul M. , Douglas B. Grob .1996“Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys.”Annual Review of Sociology 22 (August):377–99. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
KING, G., MURRAY, C. J. L., SALOMON, J. A., & TANDON, A.
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2004-02
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
191-207
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.1017/s000305540400108x
OpenAlex
W3123667390
Cited by
962
References
2
FWCI
69.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 26 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.