Courts of last resort in the American states offer researchers considerable leverage to develop and test theories about how institutions influence judicial behavior. One measure critical to this research agenda is the individual judges' preferences, or ideal points, in policy space. Two main strategies for recovering this measure exist in the literature: Brace, Langer, and Hall's (2000, Measuring preferences of state supreme court judges, Journal of Politics 62(2):387–413) Party-Adjusted Judge Ideology and Bonica and Woodruff's (2014, A common-space measure of state supreme court ideology, Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, doi: 10.1093/jleo/ewu016) judicial CFscores. Here, we introduce a third measurement strategy that combines CFscores with item response (IRT) estimates of judicial voting behavior in all fifty-two state courts of last resort from 1995 to 2010. We show that leveraging two distinct sources of information (votes and CFscores) yields a superior estimation strategy. Specifically, we highlight several key advantages of the combined measure: (1) it is estimated dynamically, allowing for the possibility that judges' ideological leanings change over time and (2) it maps judges into a common space. In a comparison against existing measurement strategies, we find that our measure offers superior performance in predicting judges' votes. We conclude that it is a valuable tool for advancing the study of judicial politics.

The accuracy of published findings is compromised when researchers fail to report and adjust for multiple testing. Preregistration of studies and the requirement of preanalysis plans for publication are two proposed solutions to combat this problem. Some have raised concerns that such changes in research practice may hinder inductive learning. However, without knowing the extent of underreporting, it is difficult to assess the costs and benefits of institutional reforms. This paper examines published survey experiments conducted as part of the Time-sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences program, where the questionnaires are made publicly available, allowing us to compare planned design features against what is reported in published research. We find that: (1) 30% of papers report fewer experimental conditions in the published paper than in the questionnaire; (2) roughly 60% of papers report fewer outcome variables than what are listed in the questionnaire; and (3) about 80% of papers fail to report all experimental conditions and outcomes. These findings suggest that published statistical tests understate the probability of type I errors.