IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v30y2022i4p570-589_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Topics, Concepts, and Measurement: A Crowdsourced Procedure for Validating Topics as Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Ying, Luwei
  • Montgomery, Jacob M.
  • Stewart, Brandon M.

Abstract

Topic models, as developed in computer science, are effective tools for exploring and summarizing large document collections. When applied in social science research, however, they are commonly used for measurement, a task that requires careful validation to ensure that the model outputs actually capture the desired concept of interest. In this paper, we review current practices for topic validation in the field and show that extensive model validation is increasingly rare, or at least not systematically reported in papers and appendices. To supplement current practices, we refine an existing crowd-sourcing method by Chang and coauthors for validating topic quality and go on to create new procedures for validating conceptual labels provided by the researcher. We illustrate our method with an analysis of Facebook posts by U.S. Senators and provide software and guidance for researchers wishing to validate their own topic models. While tailored, case-specific validation exercises will always be best, we aim to improve standard practices by providing a general-purpose tool to validate topics as measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying, Luwei & Montgomery, Jacob M. & Stewart, Brandon M., 2022. "Topics, Concepts, and Measurement: A Crowdsourced Procedure for Validating Topics as Measures," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 570-589, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:30:y:2022:i:4:p:570-589_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198721000334/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:30:y:2022:i:4:p:570-589_7. 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.