IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v69y1975i03p871-888_24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Models, Measurement and Sources of Error: Civil Conflict in Black Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Welfling, Mary B.

Abstract

Cross-national research is plagued by several methodological problems that threaten to distort results and hence raise questions concerning the adequacy of substantive findings. The extent and impact of three of these methodological problems—measurement, sampling, and specification errors—are assessed for a recent model of civil conflict developed by Gurr and Duvall. Concepts in their model are measured with two distinct data sets to estimate measurement error; to assess sampling error, measures are applied to a sample of black African nations which were excluded from their analysis; and new concepts are introduced to assess error in theoretical specification. Although all forms of error are found to exist in their work and to have some distorting effects on their model, it is concluded that some of the general model is accurate. However, discovery of (1) the concepts and data sets that contain the greatest error, and (2) the sources of sampling and specification error, is used to improve substantive findings about the causes of manifest political conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Welfling, Mary B., 1975. "Models, Measurement and Sources of Error: Civil Conflict in Black Africa," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 871-888, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:69:y:1975:i:03:p:871-888_24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400243694/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim Hill & Patricia Hurley, 1981. "Convergent and discriminant validity tests for Fitzgibbon-Johnson political scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 433-443, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:69:y:1975:i:03:p:871-888_24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.