The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-National and Cross-Temporal Expert-Coded Data
Open accessAbstract
The Varieties of Democracy (V–Dem) project relies on country experts who code a host of ordinal variables, providing subjective ratings of latent - that is, not directly observable - regime characteristics over time. Sets of around five experts rate each case (country-year observation), and each of these raters works independently. Since raters may diverge in their coding because of either differences of opinion or mistakes, we require systematic tools with which to model these patterns of disagreement. These tools allow us to aggregate ratings into point estimates of latent concepts and quantify our uncertainty around these point estimates. In this paper we describe item response theory models that can that account and adjust for differential item functioning (i.e. differences in how experts apply ordinal scales to cases) and variation in rater reliability (i.e. random error). We also discuss key challenges specific to applying item response theory to expert-coded cross-national panel data, explain the approaches that we use to address these challenges, highlight potential problems with our current framework, and describe long-term plans for improving our models and estimates. Finally, we provide an overview of the different forms in which we present model output.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
V-Dem uses a measurement model to correct for some problems associated with coders using different scales.
“V-Dem uses a measurement model to correct for some of the problems associated with coders using different scales (Pemstein et al. 2018).”
From Measuring Democratic Backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Pemstein et al. 2018
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Democracy’s backsliding in the international environment
Hyde, S. D. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb2434 · Cited by 108
Measuring Democratic Backsliding
Little, A. T., & Meng, A. (2024) · PS: Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s104909652300063x · Cited by 121
Civil Society Under Attack: The Consequences for Horizontal Accountability Institutions
Smidt, H., Johansson, J., & Richter, T. (2025) · Studies in Comparative International Development · doi:10.1007/s12116-023-09423-x · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Pemstein, D., Marquardt, K. L., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y.-T., Krusell, J., & Miri, F.
- Affiliations
- North Dakota State University (US)
- University of Bergen (NO)
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- National Cheng Kung University (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Pemstein, Daniel
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4247253257
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- item response theory, expert coding, differential item functioning, rater reliability, latent variable estimation, ordinal ratings, measurement uncertainty, regime characteristics
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