The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data *

Wiley, David E.; Wiley, James; Blalock, Hubert M.

doi:10.4324/9781315081670-9

Cited by 96 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Formula 9 from Heise (1969) is able to determine an alpha coefficient estimation for single-item measures by comparing correlations between scores across three time-points. Other researchers have confirmed the utility of this formula (Robins et al 2001;Werts et al 1971;Wiley and Wiley 1970). To perform the calculations necessary with the formulas found in Heise (1969), at least three consecutive scores were needed on both the WVAS and RVAS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Preliminary Validation of Subjective Anchor Scales for Worry and Rumination

Wichelns

Mennin

2016

Cogn Ther Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research is a preliminary validation of two single-item visual analogue scales. The worry visual analogue scale (WVAS) and the rumination visual analogue scale (RVAS) are self-report measures developed to track state changes in worry and rumination. Each of these scales uses an idiographic anchor sheet, enabling each participant to quantify their personal scale of worry or rumination. We compared ratings on the WVAS and RVAS with self-report measures of trait worry and rumination as well as other constructs administered concurrently in two separate studies. In study 1 we compared results within an unselected undergraduate sample. In study 2 we compared results within a community-based sample of individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), individuals with GAD comorbid with unipolar depressive disorders, and healthy controls. Results from both studies indicate the WVAS is a reliable state-level measure of worry with acceptable discriminant and convergent validity. Results for the RVAS showed similar reliability and convergent validity but lacked as much discriminant validity. This difference is possibly due to all experimental groups having comorbid anxiety, which is associated more with worry than rumination. Regression analyses indicate the WVAS predicts trait-level anxiety measures more strongly than measures of depression and beyond the predictive ability of the RVAS. The RVAS predicts measures of depression more strongly than it does measures of anxiety but is not consistently a stronger predictor of depression than the WVAS. These findings suggest worry and rumination are distinct regulatory constructs. In study 2, participants with GAD, and GAD comorbid with unipolar depressive disorders, scored significantly higher than healthy controls in worry and rumination. The internal reliability of the measures is reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Preliminary Validation of Subjective Anchor Scales for Worry and Rumination

Wichelns

Mennin

2016

Cogn Ther Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maybe the most well known is the test-retest design (Lord and Novick 1968) to estimate the reliability of questions. An adjustment of this approach was the Quasi simplex model (Heise 1969, Wiley andWiley 1970) used by Alwin and Krosnick (1971) and (Alwin 2007). The Mulitrait-Multimethod or MTMM design was suggested by Campbell and Fiske (1959) .…”

Section: Are Estimates Of the Quality Of Survey Measures Missing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Correction for Measurement Errors in Survey Research: Necessary and Possible

Saris

Revilla

2015

Soc Indic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survey research is the most frequently used data collection method in Sociology, Political Science, Communication, Opinion research and Marketing (Saris and Gallhofer 2007). Nearly everybody agrees that such data contains serious measurement errors. However, only very few researchers try to correct for these errors. If the measurement errors in the different variables are not the same, the comparison of the sizes of effects of variables on each other will be wrong. If the sizes of the measurement errors are different across countries, cross national comparisons of relationships between variables cannot be made. There is ample evidence for these differences in measurements errors across variables, methods and countries (Alwin 2007, Saris and Gallhofer 2007

show abstract

“…Thus, a more natural-looking division of the sample into two equal halves would leave too few usable cases in the bottom half to provide any realistic hope of …nding Watergate e¤ects among less-informed people even if they existed.3 4 For Watergate attitudes, our estimates of reliability are the alpha reliability coe¢ cients derived from the correlations among responses to the four distinct survey items comprising our Watergate scale. For party identi…cation, perceived issue proximity, and respondents' own issue positions, our estimates of reliability are derived from the correlations among responses to each item in the three waves of the NES panel using the measurement error model proposed byWiley and Wiley (1970).3 5 We include lagged party identi…cation to allow for the possibility that partisan predispositions in place by the time of the 1972 survey produced partisan rationalization on speci…c issues between 1972 and 1976. However, since our model does not specify the timing of the inferential processes we posit, we have no strong reason to expect such e¤ects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

It Feels Like We’re Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter

2017

Democracy for Realists

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The familiar image of rational electoral choice has voters weighing the competing candidates' strengths and weaknesses, calculating comparative distances in issue space, and assessing the president's management of foreign a¤airs and the national economy. Indeed, once or twice in a lifetime, a national or personal crisis does induce political thought. But most of the time, the voters adopt issue positions, adjust their candidate perceptions, and invent facts to rationalize decisions they have already made. The implications of this distinction-between genuine thinking and its day-to-day counterfeit-strike at the roots of both positive and normative theories of electoral democracy.The primary use of party is to create public opinion. -Philip C. Friese (1856, 7) Cognitive Consistency, Partisan Inference, and Issue Perceptions 1The rise of scholarly interest in "issue voting"in the 1960s and '70s prompted concern about the implications of partisan inference for statistical analyses of the relationship between issue positions and vote choices. The spatial theory of voting (Downs 1957; Enelow and Hinich 1984) cast "issue proximity" as both the primary determinant of voters'choices and the primary focus of candidates'campaign strategies. The proliferation of issue scales in the Michigan (later, National Election Study) surveys provided ample raw material for naïve regressions of vote choices on "issue proximities" calculated by comparing respondents' own positions on these issue scales with the positions they attributed to the competing candidates or parties. The ambiguity inherent in empirical relationships of this sort was clear to scholars of voting behavior by the early 1970s. Brody and Page (1972) outlined three distinct interpretations of the positive correlation between "issue proximity" and vote choice. The …rst, "Policy Oriented Evaluation," corresponds to the conventional interpretation of issue voting -prospective voters observe the candidates'policy positions, compare them to their own policy preferences, and choose a candidate accordingly. The second, "Persuasion,"involves prospective voters altering their own issue positions to bring them into conformity with the issue positions of the candidate or party they favor.The third, "Projection," involves prospective voters convincing themselves

show abstract

The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data *

Cited by 96 publications

References 1 publication

Preliminary Validation of Subjective Anchor Scales for Worry and Rumination

Preliminary Validation of Subjective Anchor Scales for Worry and Rumination

Correction for Measurement Errors in Survey Research: Necessary and Possible

It Feels Like We’re Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About