IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v8y2020i3p580-588_14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Experts Disagree: Response Aggregation and its Consequences in Expert Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Lindstädt, René
  • Proksch, Sven-Oliver
  • Slapin, Jonathan B.

Abstract

Political scientists use expert surveys to assess the latent features of political actors. Experts, though, are unlikely to be equally informed and assess all actors equally well. The literature acknowledges variance in measurement quality but pays little attention to the implications of uncertainty for aggregating responses. We discuss the nature of the measurement problem in expert surveys. We then propose methods to assess the ability of experts to judge where actors stand and to aggregate expert responses. We examine the effects of aggregation for a prominent survey in the literature on party politics and EU integration. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we demonstrate that it is better to aggregate expert responses using the median or modal response, rather than the mean.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindstädt, René & Proksch, Sven-Oliver & Slapin, Jonathan B., 2020. "When Experts Disagree: Response Aggregation and its Consequences in Expert Surveys," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 580-588, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:580-588_14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847018000523/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. Anna Bassi, 2021. "Parties’ Preferences for Office and Policy Goals," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, January.
    2. Ali Fisunoglu & Kyungkook Kang & Tad Kugler & Marina Arbetman-Rabinowitz, 2023. "Relative political capacity: A dataset to evaluate the performance of nations, 1960–2018," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(3), pages 325-345, May.

    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:pscirm:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:580-588_14. 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/ram .

    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.