IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v13y2005i01p95-108_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issue Attitudes and Survey Continuity across Interview Mode in the 2000 NES

Author

Listed:
  • Fogarty, Brian J.
  • Kelly, Nathan J.
  • Kilburn, H. Whitt

Abstract

Can researchers draw consistent inferences about the U.S. public's issue attitudes when studying survey results from both the in-person and telephone interview modes of the 2000 National Election Studies (NES) survey? We address this question through an analysis contrasting the distribution of issue attitudes across modes in the dual sample design of the 2000 NES. We find clear differences across mode even when applying a method devised by the NES to improve comparability by recoding issue attitude scales from the in-person mode. We present an alternative method of recoding these scales, which substantially improves comparability between modes. Through an analysis of the covariance structure of the issues and simple models of vote choice, we discuss the implications of the results for the study of issue attitudes in the 2000 NES.

Suggested Citation

  • Fogarty, Brian J. & Kelly, Nathan J. & Kilburn, H. Whitt, 2005. "Issue Attitudes and Survey Continuity across Interview Mode in the 2000 NES," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 95-108, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:13:y:2005:i:01:p:95-108_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700000991/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:13:y:2005:i:01:p:95-108_00. 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.