What do citizens think of when they hear the word 'democracy'? Recent studies have focused on precisely this question and its implications for survey research. In particular, several scholars have critiqued traditional survey measures of citizens' support for democracy, arguing that these measures are ambiguous and lead respondents to evaluate democracy according to very different criteria Norris 1999;Rose, Mishler and Haerpfer 1998). For example, people from different social, economic, or cultural strata may rate 'satisfaction with the working of democracy' (SWD) as satisfaction with economic performance, with the protection of civil liberties, with public service provision, or with the maintenance of law and order. Such criticism has serious practical ramifications, as studies of citizens' support for democracy are frequently used in constructing policies and rating the viability of democratic regimes. 2While recent work indicates that individuals conceptualize democracy in a variety of ways Seligson 2001), to date scholars have not fully explained why citizens think of democracy in different terms, and if these multiple conceptualizations matter. Using data gathered from field research in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Guatemala, we examine what factors influence citizens' conceptualizations of democracy. We aim to demonstrate that within a diverse group of respondents, conceptualizations and evaluations of democracy are based upon several factors, and that the evaluative criteria (or the interpretations of 'democracy') have important implications for regime stability.Our data are uniquely suited to examine these issues. From May through August 2001, we administered written questionnaires to several samples in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Guatemala. The core of these questionnaires consisted of openended questions, asking respondents to list the things they liked and did not like about democracy in their countries. As these countries vary dramatically in their levels of income, education, urbanization, and ethnic composition, the resulting sample provides a diverse cross-section of citizens in Latin America. 3 In each of these countries, the samples consisted of participants from different educational, occupational, economic, and ethnic sectors. 4 Although we did not use a probability sample, we took great care to ensure that our samples were diverse, reflecting as much as possible the demographic composition of each country.5 Our survey questionnaire is useful for examining citizens' attitudes in greater depth, particularly since it included open-ended questions that gave respondents the opportunity to discuss democracy in their own words. While our data do not allow us to make inferences to the respective populations of each country, they do permit an in-depth examination of how various people think about the functioning of democracy in their countries. Such an examination sheds light on the ways in which people conceive of democracy, and can greatly improve the future construction and implementation of repre...
Purpose: A systematic review was conducted to analyze the inter-rater reliability, cross-informant consistency, test-retest reliability, and temporal stability of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and its ability to discriminate. Method: We searched three databases for articles about the SDQ (parent, teacher, and self-report version), used samples of children up to age 18 and reported inter-rater reliability, cross-informant reliability, test-retest reliability, temporal stability, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Focusing on the TDS, inter-rater, and cross-informant reliability showed acceptable values, but respondent types (e.g., mothers and fathers) are not interchangeable. Test-retest reliability and temporal stability were also acceptable, and not excessively high. Specificity and NPV were acceptable but not sensitivity and PPV. Discussion and Conclusion: Greater transparency is needed about who the respondent is when the term "parents" is used. The SDQ is an important supplement to service-as-usual assessments by social care professionals.
Denne rapport udgør en redegørelse for status for inklusionsprocessen i tolv danske kommuner pr. marts 2013. Den samlede undersøgelse, der går under navnet 'Dokumentationsprojektet', løber i tre år og blev givet til et konsortium bestående af Aarhus Universitet og SFI den 16. januar 2013, og der har derfor vaeret meget kort tid til at få indsamlet og behandlet de nødvendige data, bl.a. fordi der i den korte periode indgik både en vinterferie, en påskeferie og en influenzaepidemi. De udvalgte kommuner har ikke desto mindre alle stillet positivt op til et samarbejde, men det viste sig, at indsamlingen af data fra skoleledere, skolebestyrelsesformaend, laerere og elever blev påvirket af en meget kort tidsramme for indtastning, forhandlinger om overenskomst, og besvarelsesprocenterne er derfor under det, der kunne ønskes. Rapporten er udarbejdet af seniorforsker Siddhartha Bavistar, SFI, postdoc Camilla Brørup Dyssegaard, AU, professor Niels Egelund, AU, seniorforsker Mette Lausten, SFI, og professor Susan Tetler, AU. Susan Tetler har vaeret projektleder, mens Niels Egelund har vaeret kontaktperson. Ud over forfatterne til denne rapport har forskningsassistent Hilde Ulvseth, AU, ph.d.-stipendiat Charlotte Riis Jensen, AU, arbejdet med transskription af interview, lektor Anne Morin, AU, og lektor Lotte Hedegaard-Sørensen, AU, har vaeret projektdeltagere, og studentermedhjaelp Sigrid Trier Grønfeldt, SFI, har udtrukket og bearbejdet de kvantitative registerdata, der var til rådighed. Sidst, men ikke mindst skal lyde en tak til de medvirkende skolechefer, PPRledere, skoleledere, laerere og skolebestyrelsesformaend, der under stort tidspres har leveret saerdeles nyttige informationer for undersøgelsen.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.