IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v11y2003i01p86-94_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Consensus on Second-Stage Analyses in Ecological Inference Models

Author

Listed:
  • Adolph, Christopher
  • King, Gary
  • Herron, Michael C.
  • Shotts, Kenneth W.

Abstract

Since Herron and Shotts (2003a; hereinafter HS), Adolph and King (2003; hereinafter AK), and Herron and Shotts (2003b; hereinafter HS2), the four of us have iterated many more times, learned a great deal, and arrived at a consensus on this issue. This paper describes our joint recommendations for how to run second-stage ecological regressions, and provides detailed analyses to back up our claims.

Suggested Citation

  • Adolph, Christopher & King, Gary & Herron, Michael C. & Shotts, Kenneth W., 2003. "A Consensus on Second-Stage Analyses in Ecological Inference Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 86-94, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:11:y:2003:i:01:p:86-94_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700010524/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lehmann, Sibylle H., 2010. "The German Elections in the 1870s: Why Germany Turned from Liberalism to Protectionism," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(1), pages 146-178, March.
    2. Baodong Liu, 2007. "EI Extended Model and the Fear of Ecological Fallacy," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(1), pages 3-25, August.
    3. Jon Wakefield, 2004. "Ecological inference for 2 × 2 tables (with discussion)," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 167(3), pages 385-445, July.
    4. Carolina Plescia & Lorenzo De Sio, 2018. "An evaluation of the performance and suitability of R × C methods for ecological inference with known true values," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 669-683, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:11:y:2003:i:01:p:86-94_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.