The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999
Open accessAbstract
At the heart of attitudinal and strategic explanations of judicial behavior is the assumption that justices have policy preferences. In this paper we employ Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to fit a Bayesian measurement model of ideal points for all justices serving on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1953 through 1999. We are particularly interested in determining to what extent ideal points of justices change throughout their tenure on the Court. This is important because judicial politics scholars oftentimes invoke preference measures that are time invariant. To investigate preference change, we posit a dynamic item response model that allows ideal points to change systematically over time. Additionally, we introduce Bayesian methods for fitting multivariate dynamic linear models to political scientists. Our results suggest that many justices do not have temporally constant ideal points. Moreover, our ideal point estimates outperform existing measures and explain judicial behavior quite well across civil rights, civil liberties, economics, and federalism cases.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data
Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082979 · Cited by 6,840
Estimating Legislators' Preferred Points
Londregan, J. (1999) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029804 · Cited by 159
Cited by
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barbera, P. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2108098 · Cited by 983
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982
Respect for Human Rights has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability
FARISS, C. J. (2014) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055414000070 · Cited by 706
Mapping the Ideological Marketplace
Bonica, A. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12062 · Cited by 680
Democracy as a Latent Variable
Treier, S., & Jackman, S. (2008) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00308.x · Cited by 680
Metadata
- Authors
- Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M.
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 134-153
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W2153140039
- Cited by
- 1,144
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 200.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pan/10.2.134
- The paper
- Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2002). Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.2.134
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.