Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Survey research is the most frequently used data collection method in many disciplines. Nearly, everybody agrees that such data contain serious measurement errors. However, only few researchers try to correct for them. If the measurement errors in the variables vary, the comparison of the sizes of effects of these variables on each other will be wrong. If the sizes of the measurement errors are different across countries, cross-national comparisons of relationships between variables cannot be made. There is ample evidence for these differences in measurement errors across variables, methods and countries (Saris and Gallhofer in Design, evaluation and analysis of questionnaires for survey. Wiley, Hoboken, 2007; Oberski in Measurement errors in comparative surveys. PhD thesis, University of Tilburg, 2011). Therefore, correction for measurement errors is essential for the social sciences. The correction for measurement errors can be made in a simple way, but it requires that the sizes of the error variances are known for all observed variables. Many experiments are carried out to determine the quality of questions. The relationship between the quality and the characteristics of the questions has been studied. Because this relationship is rather strong, one can also predict the quality of new questions. A program SQP has been developed to predict the quality of questions. Using this program, the quality of the questions (complement of error variance) can be obtained for nearly all questions measuring subjective concepts. For objective variables, other research needs to be used (e.g., Alwin in Margins of error: a study of reliability in survey measurement. Wiley, Hoboken, 2007). Using these two sources of information, making correction for measurement error in survey research is possible. We illustrate here that correction for measurement errors can and should be performed.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement. Hoboken: Wiley. CrossRef
Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, I. A. (1991). The reliability of survey attitude measurement. The influence of question and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods and Research,20, 139–181. CrossRef
Andrews, F. M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural equation approach. Public Opinion Quarterly,48, 409–442. CrossRef
Belson, W. (1981). The design and understanding of survey questions. London: Gower.
Biemer, P. R. (2011). Latent class analysis of survey errors. Hoboken: Wiley.
Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning,45(1), 5–32. CrossRef
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrices. Psychological Bulletin,56, 81–105. CrossRef
De Castellarnau, A., & Saris, W. E. (2014). A simple way to correct for measurement errors. European Social Survey Education Net (ESS EduNet). http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/measurement/
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken: Wiley.
Goldberger, A. S., & Duncan, O. D. (Eds.). (1973). Structural equation models in the social sciences. New York: Seminar Press.
Hagenaars, J. (1988). Latent structure model with direct effects between indicators; local dependency models. Sociological Methods and Research,16, 379–405. CrossRef
Hambleto, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. London: Sage.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heise, D. R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test–retest-correlation. American Sociological Review,34, 93–101. CrossRef
Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Költringer, R. (1993). Gültigkeit von Umfragendaten. Wien: Bohlau.
Költringer, R. (1995). Measurement quality in Austrian personal interview surveys. In W. E. Saris & A. Münnich (Eds.), The multitrait-multimethod approach to evaluate measurement instruments (pp. 207–225). Budapest: Eötvös University Press.
Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1971). Factor analysis as a statistical method. London: Butterworth.
Lord, F., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesly.
Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis: With applications in political research. The Hague: Mouton. CrossRef
Molenaar, N. I. (1986). Formuleringseffecten in survey-interviews. PhD thesis, Amsterdam: Free University.
Oberski, D.T. (2011). Measurement errors in comparative surveys. PhD thesis, University of Tilburg.
Oberski, D.T., Gruner, T., & Saris, W. E. (2011). The prediction procedure the quality of the questions based on the present data base of questions In W. E Saris, D. Oberski, M. Revilla, D. Zavalla, L. Lilleoja, I. Gallhofer, & T. Grüner. (Eds.), The development of the Program SQP 2.0 for the prediction of the quality of survey questions. RECSM Working paper 24, chapter 6.
Saris, W. E, Oberski, D., Revilla, M., Zavalla, D., Lilleoja, L., Gallhofer, I., & Grüner, T. (2011). The development of the Program SQP 2.0 for the prediction of the quality of survey questions. RECSM Working paper 24.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Education Research.
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2007). Design, evaluation and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. Hoboken: Wiley. CrossRef
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2014). Design, evaluation and analysis of questionnaires for survey research (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley. CrossRef
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Coenders, G. (2004). A new approach for evaluating quality of measurement instruments. Sociological Methodology,3, 311–347. CrossRef
Oberski, D. T., & Satorra, A. (2013). Measurement error models with uncertainty about the error variance. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 409–428.
Scherpenzeel, A. C. (1995). A question of quality. Evaluating survey questions by multitrait-multimethod studies. Leidschendam: KPN Research.
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude survey: Experiments on question form, wording and context. New York: Academic Press.
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. London: Wiley.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Van Schuur, W. H. (1997). Nonparametric IRT models for dominance and proximity data. In M. Wilson, G. Engelhard Jr, & K. Draney (Eds.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 4, pp. 313–331). Greenwich: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Vermunt, J. K. (2003). Multilevel latent class models. Sociological Methodology,33, 213–239. CrossRef
Wiley, D. E., & Wiley, I. A. (1970). The estimation of measurement error in panel data. American Sociological Review,35, 112–117. CrossRef
- Correction for Measurement Errors in Survey Research: Necessary and Possible
Willem E. Saris
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Neuer Inhalt/© julien tromeur | Fotolia