Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Expert Survey× | List Experiment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet | Political Science | Political Science |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | — | 2011 |
| Urheber≠ | Comparative party-positioning research (Castles & Mair; Chapel Hill team) | Survey methodology; modern estimators by Kosuke Imai, Graeme Blair, Adam Glynn |
| Typ≠ | Survey of subject-matter experts to measure latent positions | Sensitive-question survey experiment |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Bakker, R., de Vries, C., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Marks, G., Polk, J., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M., & Vachudova, M. A. (2015). Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010. Party Politics, 21(1), 143–152. DOI ↗ | Imai, K. (2011). Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494), 407–416. DOI ↗ |
| Aliasnamen | Expert judgment survey, Party expert survey, Chapel Hill Expert Survey, Expert placement survey | Item count technique, Unmatched count technique, Item count method, List randomization |
| Verwandt≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | An expert survey measures latent political quantities — most often parties' positions on policy dimensions — by asking a panel of country and subject-matter experts to place the objects of interest on structured numerical scales. Averaging many experts' judgments yields position estimates, while the spread across experts provides a built-in measure of uncertainty and reliability. The Chapel Hill Expert Survey is the leading example, producing comparable measures of European parties' positions on ideology, European integration, and many specific issues over time. | The list experiment, also called the item count technique, is a survey design that measures the prevalence of a sensitive attitude or behavior without ever requiring any respondent to directly disclose it. Respondents are randomly split into two groups: a control group sees a list of innocuous items and reports only how many apply to them, while a treatment group sees the same list plus one sensitive item. Because respondents report only a count, no individual answer reveals their stance on the sensitive item, and the difference in average counts between the groups estimates the proportion holding the sensitive trait. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|