Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrowScopus Links
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Poole, K. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Political Analysis, 12:2
Political Analysis, Vol 12 No. 2, © Society for Political Methodology 2004; all rights reserved

Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap

Jeffrey B. Lewis

Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095
e-mail: jblewis{at}ucla.edu

Keith T. Poole

Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and Department of Political Science, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-3011
e-mail: kpoole{at}uh.edu

Over the last 15 years a large amount of scholarship in legislative politics has used NOMINATE or other similar methods to construct measures of legislators' ideological locations. These measures are then used in subsequent analyses. Recent work in political methodology has focused on the pitfalls of using such estimates as variables in subsequent analysis without explicitly accounting for their uncertainty and possible bias ( Herron and Shotts 2003, Political Analysis 11:44–64). This presents a problem for those employing NOMINATE scores because estimates of their unconditional sampling uncertainty or bias have until now been unavailable. In this paper, we present a method of forming unconditional standard error estimates and bias estimates for NOMINATE scores using the parametric bootstrap. Standard errors are estimated for the 90th U.S. Senate in two dimensions. Standard errors of first–dimension placements are in the 0.03 to 0.08 range. The results are compared with those obtained using the Markov chain Monte Carlo estimator of Clinton et al. (2002, Stanford University Working Paper). We also show how the bootstrap can be used to construct standard errors and confidence intervals for auxiliary quantities of interest such as ranks and the location of the median senator.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 POLIT ANALHome page
R. Carroll, J. B. Lewis, J. Lo, K. T. Poole, and H. Rosenthal
Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in DW-NOMINATE Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap
Political Analysis, July 1, 2009; 17(3): 261 - 275.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 European Union PoliticsHome page
B. Hoyland, I. Sircar, and S. Hix
Forum Section: An Automated Database of the European Parliament
European Union Politics, March 1, 2009; 10(1): 143 - 152.
[PDF]

Home page
 European Union PoliticsHome page
J.-H. Han
Analysing Roll Calls of the European Parliament: A Bayesian Application
European Union Politics, December 1, 2007; 8(4): 479 - 507.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 European Union PoliticsHome page
G. McElroy
Legislative Politics as Normal?: Voting Behaviour and Beyond in the European Parliament
European Union Politics, September 1, 2007; 8(3): 433 - 448.
[PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.