Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Candidate Evaluation Model× | Political Ideology Scaling× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Political Psychology | Political Psychology |
| Family | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Year of origin≠ | 1995 | 1985 |
| Originator≠ | Milton Lodge, Marco Steenbergen & Donald Kinder | Keith Poole & Howard Rosenthal |
| Type≠ | Latent evaluation model | Latent ideal-point model |
| Seminal source≠ | Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309-326. DOI ↗ | Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357-384. DOI ↗ |
| Aliases≠ | Impression-Driven Evaluation Model, Online Processing Model, Candidate Trait Evaluation Model | NOMINATE, Ideal Point Estimation, IRT Ideology Scaling, Spatial Voting Scaling |
| Related | 4 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | A candidate evaluation model represents how voters form overall assessments of political candidates as a latent function of perceived traits (competence, leadership, integrity, empathy), partisanship, issue proximity, and affect. It spans the trait-based factor models of Kinder et al. (1980) and the online-processing tally model of Lodge, Steenbergen and Brau (1995), which describes evaluation as a running summary updated as information arrives. | Political ideology scaling estimates actors' positions on one or more latent ideological dimensions from their observed choices, most often legislators' roll-call votes, but also survey responses and donations. The dominant methods are Poole and Rosenthal's NOMINATE (1985) and the Bayesian item-response-theory (IRT) approach of Clinton, Jackman and Rivers (2004), which place legislators and the proposals they vote on in a common spatial map. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|