ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

Expert Survey×List Experiment×
领域Political SciencePolitical Science
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份2011
提出者Comparative party-positioning research (Castles & Mair; Chapel Hill team)Survey methodology; modern estimators by Kosuke Imai, Graeme Blair, Adam Glynn
类型Survey of subject-matter experts to measure latent positionsSensitive-question survey experiment
开创性文献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 ↗
别名Expert judgment survey, Party expert survey, Chapel Hill Expert Survey, Expert placement surveyItem count technique, Unmatched count technique, Item count method, List randomization
相关43
摘要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.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Expert Survey · List Experiment. 于 2026-06-25 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare