Methoden vergelijken
Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.
| Endorsement Experiment× | List Experiment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Vakgebied | Political Science | Political Science |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Jaar van ontstaan | 2011 | 2011 |
| Grondlegger≠ | Bullock, Imai & Shapiro (statistical framework) | Survey methodology; modern estimators by Kosuke Imai, Graeme Blair, Adam Glynn |
| Type≠ | Indirect survey experiment for sensitive latent support | Sensitive-question survey experiment |
| Oorspronkelijke bron≠ | Bullock, W., Imai, K., & Shapiro, J. N. (2011). Statistical Analysis of Endorsement Experiments: Measuring Support for Militant Groups in Pakistan. Political Analysis, 19(4), 363–384. DOI ↗ | Imai, K. (2011). Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494), 407–416. DOI ↗ |
| Aliassen | Endorsement question design, Endorsement experiment design, Indirect support measurement, Group-endorsement experiment | Item count technique, Unmatched count technique, Item count method, List randomization |
| Verwant≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Samenvatting≠ | An endorsement experiment indirectly measures latent support for a sensitive or stigmatized actor by randomizing whether a policy is attributed to that actor and comparing how respondents' support for the policy shifts. Formalized statistically by Bullock, Imai, and Shapiro in 2011 to measure support for militant groups in Pakistan, the design infers favorability toward an actor that respondents would not safely disclose directly from the change in policy support it induces, typically estimated with hierarchical item-response models. | 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. |
| ScholarGateGegevensset ↗ |
|
|