Enns和Koch以及Berry等人的有效性。国家政策情绪的衡量标准:继续辩论

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
William D. Berry, Richard C. Fording, Russell L. Hanson, Justin K. Crofoot
{"title":"Enns和Koch以及Berry等人的有效性。国家政策情绪的衡量标准:继续辩论","authors":"William D. Berry, Richard C. Fording, Russell L. Hanson, Justin K. Crofoot","doi":"10.1017/spq.2021.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Enns and Koch question the validity of the Berry, Ringquist, Fording, and Hanson measure of state policy mood and defend the validity of the Enns and Koch measure on two grounds. First, they claim policy mood has become more conservative in the South over time; we present empirical evidence to the contrary: policy mood became more liberal in the South between 1980 and 2010. Second, Enns and Koch argue that an indicator’s lack of face validity in cross-sectional comparisons is irrelevant when judging the measure’s suitability in the most common form of pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis. We show their argument is logically flawed, except under highly improbable circumstances. We also demonstrate, by replicating several published studies, that statistical results about the effect of state policy mood can vary dramatically depending on which of the two mood measures is used, making clear that a researcher’s measurement choice can be highly consequential.","PeriodicalId":47181,"journal":{"name":"State Politics & Policy Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Validity of the Enns and Koch, and Berry et al. Measures of State Policy Mood: Continuing the Debate\",\"authors\":\"William D. Berry, Richard C. Fording, Russell L. Hanson, Justin K. Crofoot\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/spq.2021.23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Enns and Koch question the validity of the Berry, Ringquist, Fording, and Hanson measure of state policy mood and defend the validity of the Enns and Koch measure on two grounds. First, they claim policy mood has become more conservative in the South over time; we present empirical evidence to the contrary: policy mood became more liberal in the South between 1980 and 2010. Second, Enns and Koch argue that an indicator’s lack of face validity in cross-sectional comparisons is irrelevant when judging the measure’s suitability in the most common form of pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis. We show their argument is logically flawed, except under highly improbable circumstances. We also demonstrate, by replicating several published studies, that statistical results about the effect of state policy mood can vary dramatically depending on which of the two mood measures is used, making clear that a researcher’s measurement choice can be highly consequential.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"State Politics & Policy Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"State Politics & Policy Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/spq.2021.23\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"State Politics & Policy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/spq.2021.23","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

Enns和Koch质疑Berry、Ringquist、Fording和Hanson衡量国家政策情绪的有效性,并基于两个理由为Enns和Coch衡量的有效性辩护。首先,他们声称,随着时间的推移,南方的政策情绪变得更加保守;我们提供了相反的实证证据:1980年至2010年间,南方的政策情绪变得更加自由。其次,Enns和Koch认为,在最常见的汇总横截面时间序列分析形式中判断指标的适用性时,指标在横截面比较中缺乏表面有效性是无关紧要的。我们证明他们的论点在逻辑上是有缺陷的,除非是在极不可能的情况下。我们还通过复制几项已发表的研究表明,关于国家政策情绪影响的统计结果可能会因使用两种情绪测量中的哪一种而发生巨大变化,这清楚地表明,研究人员的测量选择可能会产生很大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Validity of the Enns and Koch, and Berry et al. Measures of State Policy Mood: Continuing the Debate
Enns and Koch question the validity of the Berry, Ringquist, Fording, and Hanson measure of state policy mood and defend the validity of the Enns and Koch measure on two grounds. First, they claim policy mood has become more conservative in the South over time; we present empirical evidence to the contrary: policy mood became more liberal in the South between 1980 and 2010. Second, Enns and Koch argue that an indicator’s lack of face validity in cross-sectional comparisons is irrelevant when judging the measure’s suitability in the most common form of pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis. We show their argument is logically flawed, except under highly improbable circumstances. We also demonstrate, by replicating several published studies, that statistical results about the effect of state policy mood can vary dramatically depending on which of the two mood measures is used, making clear that a researcher’s measurement choice can be highly consequential.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: State Politics & Policy Quarterly (SPPQ) features studies that develop general hypotheses of political behavior and policymaking and test these hypotheses using the unique methodological advantages of the states. It also includes field review essays and a section entitled “The Practical Researcher,” which is a service-oriented feature designed to provide a data, methodological, and assessment resource for those conducting research on state politics. SPPQ is the official journal of the State Politics and Policy section of the American Political Science Association and is published by the University of Illinois Press for the Institute of Legislative Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信