Cited by 403Survey Methodology and NonresponsePsychometric Methodologies and TestingSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques

The Reliability of Survey Attitude Measurement: The Influence of Question and Respondent Attributes

Open access
ALWIN, DUANE F., KROSNICK, JON A.·1991·Sociological Methods & Research

Abstract

Several theoretical hypotheses are developed concerning the relation of question and respondent characteristics to the reliability of survey attitude measurement. To test these hypotheses, reliability is estimated for 96 survey attitude measures using data from five, 3-wave national reinterview surveys-three Michigan Election Panel Surveys and two reinterview studies conducted by the General Social Survey. As hypothesized, a number of attributes of questions are linked to estimated reliability. Attitude questions with more response options tended to have higher reliabilities, although there are some important exceptions. More extensive verbal labeling of numbered response options was found to be associated with higher reliability, but questions explicitly offering a “don't know” alternative were not found to be more reliable. Question characteristics were confounded to an unknown degree with topic differences of questions, which were significantly linked to reliability, leaving the influence of question characteristics on reliability somewhat ambiguous. Characteristics of respondents were also found to be related to levels of reliability. Older respondents and those with less schooling provided the least reliable attitude reports. These results are discussed within a general framework for the consideration of survey errors and their sources.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0049124191020001005

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Increased error in a population, whether systematic or random, makes measures less capable at capturing individual differences in the trait of interest in that population.

    “Increased error in some population (whether systematic or random) makes measures less capable at capturing individual differences in the trait of interest in that population (see e.g., refs. 20–22; see also ref. 23).”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ALWIN, D. F., & KROSNICK, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Sociological Methods & Research
Published
1991-08
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
139-181
ISSN
  • 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8294
OpenAlex
W2137597548
Cited by
403
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 17
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sociological Methods & Research (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Keywords
survey reliability, attitude measurement, question characteristics, response options, respondent characteristics, age effects, educational attainment, survey error, General Social Survey

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