The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sampling Organizations and Groups of Unequal Sizes
Abstract
this model is taken as accurate, it leads to the conclusions that occupational and educational rank are negatively related to symptom level, that racial-ethnic rank is positively related to symptom level, and that all forms of sharp status inconsistency produce more or less equivalent increments in symptom level. The second alternative model, Model II, was based on the hypothesis that racialethnic status per se has no effect on symptom level. It included terms for the additive effects of occupation and education and terms for effects of sharp inconsistency, but not for additive racial-ethnic effects. Like Model I, this analysis leads to conclusions that educational and occupational rank are negatively related to symptom level and that sharp occupation-education inconsistencies increase symptom levels. Unlike the previous model, Model II indicates that sharp (and perhaps moderate) inconsistency between high ascribed status and low achieved status has a much greater impact on symptom level than the converse form of discrepancy. Of course, these two alternate models fall far short of exhausting the explanatory possibilities.22 But they do constitute two plausible hypotheses for further test. What are the grounds for choosing between them at the present time? Model I, involving all three status dimensions and four types of sharp inconsistency, accounts for somewhat more variation than Model II, at the cost of adding two terms to the prediction equation. We prefer Model II, however, because we find the assumption that inconsistency between high ascribed and low achieved status is especially likely to lead to a symptomization response, theoretically more palatable, for reasons explained in the earlier report,23 than the assumption that high racial-ethnic status is itself positively related to symptom level. A last conclusion is the the method of analysis used herein should be admirably suited to much sociological research, in which low levels of measurement and an interest in interaction are frequently combined.24
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
Cited by
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Policy evaluation during a pandemic
Callaway, B., & Li, T. (2023) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.03.009 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Kish, L.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1965-08
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 564
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2409248802
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Sampling Organizations and Groups of Unequal Sizes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2091346
- The paper
- Kish, L. (1965). Sampling Organizations and Groups of Unequal Sizes. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091346
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.