IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v97y2003i04p567-583_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • KING, GARY
  • MURRAY, CHRISTOPHER J. L.
  • SALOMON, JOSHUA A.
  • TANDON, AJAY

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.

Suggested Citation

  • King, Gary & Murray, Christopher J. L. & Salomon, Joshua A. & Tandon, Ajay, 2003. "Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 567-583, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:97:y:2003:i:04:p:567-583_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055403000881/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. Senik, Claudia, 2014. "The French unhappiness puzzle: The cultural dimension of happiness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 379-401.
    2. Rafael Di Tella & Robert MacCulloch, 2007. "Happiness, Contentment and Other Emotions for Central Banks," NBER Working Papers 13622, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. John F. Helliwell, 2006. "Well-Being, Social Capital and Public Policy: What's New?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(510), pages 34-45, March.
    4. Soleri, Daniela & Cleveland, David A. & Glasgow, Garrett & Sweeney, Stuart H. & Cuevas, Flavio Aragón & Fuentes, Mario R. & Ríos L., Humberto, 2008. "Testing assumptions underlying economic research on transgenic food crops for Third World farmers: Evidence from Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 667-682, November.
    5. Sheng Wu & Yi Zhang & Zheng-Yun Zhuang, 2018. "A Systematic Initial Study of Civic Scientific Literacy in China: Cross-National Comparable Results from Scientific Cognition to Sustainable Literacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, September.
    6. Fernández-Pérez, Ángel & Jiménez-Rubio, Dolores & Robone, Silvana, 2022. "Freedom of choice and health services’ performance: Evidence from a national health system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(12), pages 1283-1290.
    7. He Chen & Tianguang Meng, 2015. "Bonding, Bridging, and Linking Social Capital and Self-Rated Health among Chinese Adults: Use of the Anchoring Vignettes Technique," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Steven B. Caudill & Franklin G. Mixon, 2005. "Analysing Misleading Discrete Responses: A Logit Model Based on Misclassified Data," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 67(1), pages 105-113, February.

    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:97:y:2003:i:04:p:567-583_00. 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.