Skip to main content

Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research

  • Chapter
Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft

Abstract

We address two long-standing survey research problems: measuring complicated concepts, such as political freedom and efficacy, that researchers define best with reference to examples; and what to do when respondents interpret identical questions in different ways. Scholars have long addressed these problems with approaches to reduce incomparability, such as writing more concrete questions—with uneven success. Our alternative is to measure directly response category incomparability and to correct for it. We measure incomparability via respondents’ assessments, on the same scale as the self-assessments to be corrected, of hypothetical individuals described in short vignettes. Because the actual (but not necessarily reported) levels of the vignettes are invariant over respondents, variability in vignette answers reveals incomparability. Our corrections require either simple recodes or a statistical model designed to save survey administration costs. With analysis, simulations, and cross-national surveys, we show how response incomparability can drastically mislead survey researchers and how our approach can alleviate this problem.

The current article is a reprint of King/Murray/Salomon/Tandon (2004), authorized by the authors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aldrich, John H./ McKelvey Richard D (1977): A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections. In: American Political Science Review 71(March): 111–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alt, James/ Sarlvik, Bo/ Crewe, Ivor (1976): Individual Differences Scaling and Group Attitude Structures: British Party Imagery in 1974. In: Quality and Quantity 10(October): 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, Lawrence (1988): Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court. In: American Political Science Review 82(September): 905–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, Henry E. (1985): The Perils of Survey Research: Inter-Personally Incomparable Responses. In: Political Methodology 11(June): 269–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, Henry E. (1989): Factor and Ideal Point Analysis for Interpersonally Incomparable Data. In: Psychometrika 542(June): 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantril, Hadley. 1965. The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caroll, J. D./ Chang, J. J. (1970): Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling. In: Psychometrika 35(September): 283–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Gordon W./ Rensvold, Roger B. (2000): Assessing Extreme and Acquiescence Response Sets in Cross-Cultural Research Using Structural Equations Modeling (with Comments). In: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(March): 187–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, Douglas B. (2000): A Random Effects Individual Difference Multidimensional Scaling Model. In: Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 32(January): 337–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, Joshua/ Jackman, Simon/ Rivers, Douglas (2002): The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, Andrew/ King, Gary (1994): A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans. In: American Journal of Political Science 38(June): 514–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Donald P./ Gerber, Alan (2001): Reclaiming the Experimental Tradition in Political Science. In Political Science: State of the Discipline, III. (Milner Helen/Katznelson, Ira). Washington, DC: APSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groot, Wim/ Maassen van den Brink, Henriette (1999): Job Satisfaction and Preference Drift. In: Economics Letters 63(June): 363–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groseclose, Tim/ Levitt, Steven D./ Snyder, James (1999): Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress. In: American Political Science Review 93(March): 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, James/ Snyder, James (1997): Linear Probabilty Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators. In: Rand Journal of Economics 28(Special Issue): 142–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, Paul W./ Wainer, Howard (eds.) (1993): Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Timothy P. (1998): Approaches to Equivalence in Cross-Cultural and Cross-National Survey Research. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial 3: 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Valen E./ Albert, James H. (1999): Ordinal Data Modeling. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel/ Schkade, David/ Sunstein, Cass R. (1998): Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages. In: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16(April): 49–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, Donald R./ Palfrey, Thomas R. (eds.) (1993): Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary (1997): A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary/ Honaker, James/ Joseph, Anne/ Scheve, Kenneth (2001): Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation. In: American Political Science Review 95(March): 49–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Jeffrey B. (2001): Estimating Voter Preference Distributions from Individual-Level Voting Data. In: Political Analysis 9(Summer): 275–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linden, Wim Van Der/ Hambleton, Ronald K. (eds.) (1997): Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Londregan, John (2000): Estimating Legislator’s Preferred Points. In: Political Analysis 8(Winter): 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Elizabeth A./ Campanelli, Pamela C./ Fay, Robert E. (1991): An Application of Rasch Analysis to Questionnaire Design: Using Vignettes to Study the Meaning of’ Work’ in the Current Population Survey.“ In: The Statistician 40(September): 265–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, A. (1992): Review of the Development of Multidimensional Scaling Methods. In: The Statistician 41 (April): 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palfrey, Thomas R./ Poole, Keith T. (1987): The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voter Behavior. In: American Journal of Political Science 31(September): 511–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, Alex R./ Macintosh, Randall (2002): The Validity of a Self-Reported Delinquency Scale: Comparisons across Gender, Age, Race, and Place of Residence. In: Sociological Methods and Research 30(May): 492–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, Keith T. (1998): Recovering a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales. In: American Journal of Political Science 42(September): 954–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, Keith/ Daniels, R. Steven (1985): Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress, 1959-1980. In: American Political Science Review 79(June): 373–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, Keith,/ Rosenthal, Howard (1991): Patterns of Congressional Voting. In: American Journal of Political Science 35(February): 228–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, Adam/ Teune, Henry (1966-67): Equivalence in Cross-National Research. In: Public Opinion Quarterly 30(Winter): 551–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H./ Nock, S. L. (eds.) (1983): Measuring Social Judgements: The Factorial Survey Approach. Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya (2002): Health: Perception versus Observation. In: British Medical Journal 324(April 13): 860–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shealy, R./ Stout, W. (1993): A Model-Based Standardization Approach That Separates True Bias/DIF from Group Ability Differences and Detects Test Bias/DIF as Well as Item Bias/DIF. In: Psychometrika 58(June): 159–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, Paul M./ Grob, Douglas B. (1996): Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys. In: Annual Review of Sociology 22(August): 377–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Anita L./ Napoles-Springer, Anna (2000): Health-Related Quality of Life Assessments in Diverse Population Groups in the United States. In: Medical Care 38(September): II–102–II–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L./ Jordan, B. (1990): Interactional Troubles in Face to Face Survey Interviews (with Comments and Rejoinder). In: Journal of the American Statistical Association 85(March): 232–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thissen, David/ Steinberg, Lynn/ Wainer, Howard (1993): Detection of Differential Item Functioning Using the Parameters of the Item Response Models. In: (Holland, Paul H./ Wainer, Howard) (eds.): Differential Item Functioning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, Warren S. (1958): Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, Rory/ Firth, David (2002): Modelling Subjective Use of an Ordinal Reponse Scale in a Many Period Crossover Experiment. In: Applied Statistics 51(April): 245–55.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Susanne Pickel Gert Pickel Hans-Joachim Lauth Detlef Jahn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

King, G., Murray, C.J.L., Salomon, J.A., Tandon, A. (2009). Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research. In: Pickel, S., Pickel, G., Lauth, HJ., Jahn, D. (eds) Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_16

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-16194-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-91826-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics