Political Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 1, © Society for Political Methodology 2005; all rights reserved.
Analyzing the 2000 National Election Study
Center for Political Studies 4253 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248
e-mail: jwbowers{at}umich.edu
Center for Political Studies 4246 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248
e-mail: nburns{at}umich.edu (corresponding author)
Department of Political Science, 210 Woodburn Hall, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
e-mail: ensley{at}indiana.edu
Center for Political Studies 4258 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248
e-mail: drkinder{at}umich.edu
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.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. M. Ladd Predispositions and Public Support for the President During the War on Terrorism Public Opin Q, December 1, 2007; 71(4): 511 - 538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|