Advertisement

Probleme der Messung politischen Wissens im internationalen Vergleich

  • Martin ElffEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Politisches Wissen book series (POWI)

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag diskutiert die Probleme einer länderübergreifend vergleichenden Messung politischen Wissens. Es wird das Dilemma aufgezeigt, dass es nicht gleichzeitig möglich ist, gleichzeitig einerseits Schwierigkeit und Trennschärfe von Wissensfragen und andererseits die Verteilung des Wissens in einer Population empirisch zu schätzen. Am Beispiel der Daten von Modul II der Comparative Study of Electoral Systems werden diese Probleme illustriert: Die in den CSES-Teilstudien verwendeten Messinstrumente sind so heterogen, dass es unmöglich ist das Ausmaß politischen Wissens über Ländergrenzen hinweg zu vergleichen. Darüber hinaus schwankt die interne Konsistenz der Messinstrumente erheblich zwischen den nationalen Teilstudien, so dass auch Zusammenhänge mit anderen Variablen nicht vergleichbar sind.

Schlüsselwörter:

Politisches Wissen Messung Internationaler Vergleich Äquivalenz Item-Response-Theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Althaus, Scott. L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barabas, Jason, Jenniffer Jerit, William Pollock und Carlisle Rainey. 2014. The Question(s) of Political Knowledge. American Political Science Review 108 (4): 840–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels, Larry M. 1996. Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berggren, Heidi M. 2001. Institutional Context and Reduction of the Resource Bias in Political Sophistication. Political Research Quarterly 54 (3): 531–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, Allan. 1968. Some Latent Trait Models and Their Use in Inferring An Examinee’s Ability. In Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, Hrsg. Frederic M. Lord und Melvin R. Novick, 397–479. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Bock, R. Darrel, und Marcus Lieberman. 1970. Fitting a Response Model for n Dichotomously Scored Items. Psychometrika 35(2): 179–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Converse, Philip E. 1990. Popular Representation and the Distribution of Information. In Information and Democratic Processes, Hrsg. John A. Ferejohn und James H. Kuklinski, 369–388. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  8. Converse, Philip E. 2000. Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 331–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CSES. 2007. The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 2 Full Release. June 27, 2007 Version: Code Book. http://www.cses.org. Zugegriffen 27. Juni 2007.
  10. Dahl, Robert A. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Delli Carpini, Michael X., und Scott Keeter. 1993. Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 1179–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delli Carpini, Michael X., und Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, Gerhard H. 1997. Unidimensional Linear Logistic Rasch Models. In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, Hrsg. Wim J. van der Linden und Ronald K. Hambleton, 225–243. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fox, Jean-Paul. 2007. Multilevel IRT Modeling in Practice with the Package mlirt. Journal of Statistical Software 20 (5). https://www.jstatsoft.org/v020/i05. Zugegriffen am 18. Mai 2018.
  15. Gilens, Martin. 2001. Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences. American Political Science Review 95 (2): 379–96.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, Stacy B., und Gary M. Segura. 1997. Cross-National Variation in the Political Sophistication of Individuals: Capability or Choice? Journal of Politics 59 (1): 126–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grönlund, Kimmo, und Henry Milner. 2006. The Determinants of Political Knowledge in Comparative Perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies 29 (4): 386–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krosnik, Jon A. 1991. Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krosnik, Jon A., Arthur Lupia, Matthew DeBell, and Darrell Donakowski. 2008. Problems with ANES Questions Measuring Political Knowledge. http://www.electionstudies.org/announce/newsltr/20080324PoliticalKnowledgeMemo.pdf. Zugegriffen am 18. Mai 2018.
  20. Linden, Wim J. van der, und Ronald K Hambleton (Hrsg.). 1997a. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Linden, Wim J. van der, und Ronald K Hambleton. 1997b. Item Response Theory: Brief History, Common Models, and Extensions. In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, Hrsg. Wim J. van der Linden und Ronald K. Hambleton, 1-28. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Luskin, Robert C., und John G. Bullock. 2011. „Don’t Know“ Means „Don’t Know“: DK Responses and the Public’s Level of Political Knowledge. Journal of Politics 73 (2): 547–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, Melissa K., und Shannon K. Orr. 2008. Experimenting with a „Third Way“ in Political Knowledge Estimation. Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (4): 768–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mokken, Robert J. 1997. Nonparametric Models for Dichotomous Responses. In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, Hrsg. Wim J. van der Linden und Ronald K. Hambleton, 351–367. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Mondak, Jeffery J. 2000. Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge. Political Analysis 8(1): 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mondak, Jeffery J. 2001. Developing Valid Knowledge Scales. American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neuman, Russel W. 1986. The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Prior, Markus, und Arthur Lupia. 2008. Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills. American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rizopoulos, Dimitris. 2006. ltm: An R package for Latent Variable Modelling and Item Response Theory Analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17 (5). https://www.jstatsoft.org/v017/i05. Zugegriffen am 18. Mai 2018.
  31. Schuur, Wijbrandt H. van. 2003. Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory. Political Analysis 11 (2): 139–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sturgis, Patrick. 2003. Knowledge and Collective Preferences: A Comparison of Two Approaches to Estimating the Opinions of a Better Informed Public. Sociological Methods & Research 31 (4): 453–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Politische SoziologieZeppelin UniversitätFriedrichshafenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations