Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:27:26.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyzing the 2000 National Election Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Jake Bowers ,
Nancy Burns ,
Michael J. Ensley  and
Donald R. Kinder
Jake Bowers
Affiliation:
Center for Political Studies 4253 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106–1248. e-mail: [email protected]
Nancy Burns*
Affiliation:
Center for Political Studies 4246 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106–1248
Michael J. Ensley
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, 210 Woodburn Hall, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. e-mail: [email protected]
Donald R. Kinder
Affiliation:
Center for Political Studies 4258 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106–1248. e-mail: [email protected]
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an earlier report, two of us (Bowers and Ensley, 2003, National Election Studies Technical Report, www.umich.edu/~nes) provided a general framework for understanding the particular strategy outlined by Fogarty et al. (in this issue). Fogarty et al.'s strategy is to make the face-to-face variables more like the random digit dial (RDD) telephone variables by trimming the ends in order to reduce the variance of the face-to-face (FTF) variables. Perhaps some scholars will want the FTF variables to look like the RDD variables, but that would be a fix for a specific research question. Given the significant differences in the representativeness of the samples, the processes of survey nonresponse, and the quality and character of the responses between data taken from a National Area Probability sample in person and data taken from an RDD telephone sample, research questions involving comparisons with other years in the 50-year time series will require different remedies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 2005 , pp. 109 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 2005 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: We would like to thank the Center for Political Studies and the Provost of the University of Michigan for funding NES Fellowships for Bowers and Ensley. We are grateful to Brian J. Fogarty, Nathan J. Kelly, and H. Whitt Kilburn for raising the issue of mode and the 2000 National Election Study.

References

Aldrich, John H., Griffin, John, and McKay, Amy. 2002. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Niemi, Richard, Rabinowitz, George, and Rohde, David W. 1982. “The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A Report on Some New Issue Question Formats.” American Journal of Political Science 26(2): 391–414.Google Scholar
Bowers, Jake, and Ensley, Michael J. 2003. “Issues in Analyzing Data from the Dual Mode 2000 American National Election Study.” National Election Studies Technical Report (available at www.umich.edu/∼nes).Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Green, Melanie C., and Krosnick, Jon A. 2003. “Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionaires.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125.Google Scholar