IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v20y1991i1p139-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Reliability of Survey Attitude Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • DUANE F. ALWIN

    (University of Michigan)

  • JON A. KROSNICK

    (Ohio State University)

Abstract

Several theoretical hypotheses are developed concerning the relation of question and respondent characteristics to the reliability of survey attitude measurement. To test these hypotheses, reliability is estimated for 96 survey attitude measures using data from five, 3-wave national reinterview surveys-three Michigan Election Panel Surveys and two reinterview studies conducted by the General Social Survey. As hypothesized, a number of attributes of questions are linked to estimated reliability. Attitude questions with more response options tended to have higher reliabilities, although there are some important exceptions. More extensive verbal labeling of numbered response options was found to be associated with higher reliability, but questions explicitly offering a “don't know†alternative were not found to be more reliable. Question characteristics were confounded to an unknown degree with topic differences of questions, which were significantly linked to reliability, leaving the influence of question characteristics on reliability somewhat ambiguous. Characteristics of respondents were also found to be related to levels of reliability. Older respondents and those with less schooling provided the least reliable attitude reports. These results are discussed within a general framework for the consideration of survey errors and their sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Duane F. Alwin & Jon A. Krosnick, 1991. "The Reliability of Survey Attitude Measurement," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 139-181, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:20:y:1991:i:1:p:139-181
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124191020001005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124191020001005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124191020001005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Converse, Philip E. & Markus, Gregory B., 1979. "Plus ça change…: The New CPS Election Study Panel," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(1), pages 32-49, March.
    2. Duane Alwin, 1989. "Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 277-331, September.
    3. Achen, Christopher H., 1975. "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1218-1231, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duane F. Alwin, 1991. "Research on Survey Quality," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 3-29, August.
    2. Duane F. Alwin & Kristina Zeiser & Don Gensimore, 2014. "Reliability of Self-reports of Financial Data in Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(1), pages 98-136, February.
    3. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    4. Duane Alwin, 1989. "Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 277-331, September.
    5. Cernat, Alexandru & Watson, Nicole & Lugtig, Peter & Noah Uhrig, S.C., 2014. "Assessing and relaxing assumptions in quasi-simplex models," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-09, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    6. Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2022. "Who Cares? Measuring Preference Intensity in a Polarized Environment," IAST Working Papers 22-130, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    7. Silvia Russo & Håkan Stattin, 2017. "Stability and Change in Youths’ Political Interest," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 643-658, June.
    8. Duane F. Alwin, 1997. "Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 25(3), pages 318-340, February.
    9. McKEE J. McCLENDON & DUANE F. ALWIN, 1993. "No-Opinion Filters and Attitude Measurement Reliability," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 21(4), pages 438-464, May.
    10. Gould, Eric D. & Klor, Esteban F., 2019. "Party hacks and true believers: The effect of party affiliation on political preferences," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 504-524.
    11. Lesmono, Dharma & Tonkes, Elliot & Burrage, Kevin, 2009. "Opportunistic timing and manipulation in Australian Federal Elections," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(2), pages 677-691, January.
    12. Luca Tasciotti & Natascha Wagner, 2018. "How Much Should We Trust Micro-data? A Comparison of the Socio-demographic Profile of Malawian Households Using Census, LSMS and DHS data," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 30(4), pages 588-612, September.
    13. Laura Mayoral & Juan J. Dolado & Jesús Gonzalo, 2003. "Long-range dependence in Spanish political opinion poll series," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 137-155.
    14. Kosuke Imai & Teppei Yamamoto, 2010. "Causal Inference with Differential Measurement Error: Nonparametric Identification and Sensitivity Analysis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 543-560, April.
    15. Amalia Vanacore & Maria Sole Pellegrino, 2019. "How Reliable are Students’ Evaluations of Teaching (SETs)? A Study to Test Student’s Reproducibility and Repeatability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 77-89, November.
    16. Tim Liao, 1995. "The nonrandom selection of don't knows in binary and ordinal responses: Corrections with the bivariate probit model with sample selection," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 87-110, February.
    17. HeeMin Kim & Hyeyoung Yoo & Jungho Roh, 2015. "A re-examination of the effects of the economy, government spending, and incumbent ideology on national policy mood," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344, December.
    18. Martin Kroh, 2005. "Surveying the Left-Right Dimension: The Choice of a Response Format," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 491, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Miles S. Kimball & Colter M. Mitchell & Arland D. Thornton & Linda C. Young-Demarco, 2009. "Empirics on the Origins of Preferences: The Case of College Major and Religiosity," NBER Working Papers 15182, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Liza G. Steele & Nate Breznau, 2019. "Attitudes toward Redistributive Policy: An Introduction," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, June.

    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:sae:somere:v:20:y:1991:i:1:p:139-181. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.