IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v7y2019i02p367-384_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Impact of Non-Random Measurement Error on Inference: A Sensitivity Analysis Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gallop, Max
  • Weschle, Simon

Abstract

Many commonly used data sources in the social sciences suffer from non-random measurement error, understood as mis-measurement of a variable that is systematically related to another variable. We argue that studies relying on potentially suspect data should take the threat this poses to inference seriously and address it routinely in a principled manner. In this article, we aid researchers in this task by introducing a sensitivity analysis approach to non-random measurement error. The method can be used for any type of data or statistical model, is simple to execute, and straightforward to communicate. This makes it possible for researchers to routinely report the robustness of their inference to the presence of non-random measurement error. We demonstrate the sensitivity analysis approach by applying it to two recent studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Gallop, Max & Weschle, Simon, 2019. "Assessing the Impact of Non-Random Measurement Error on Inference: A Sensitivity Analysis Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 367-384, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:7:y:2019:i:02:p:367-384_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847016000534/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. Thieme, Sebastian, 2024. "(When) are Lobbying Expenditures a Good Proxy for Lobbying Activity?," IAST Working Papers 24-160, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    2. Pina-Sánchez, Jose & brunton-smith, ian & Buil-Gil, David & Cernat, Alexandru, 2022. "rcme: A Sensitivity Analysis Tool to Explore the Impact of Measurement Error in Police Recorded Crime Rates," SocArXiv sbc8w, Center for Open Science.
    3. Andrew Cheon & Shi-Teng Kang & Swetha Ramachandran, 2021. "Determinants of Environmental Conflict: When Do Communities Mobilize against Fossil Fuel Production?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(7-8), pages 1308-1336, August.
    4. Gallego, Jorge & Guardado, Jenny & Wantchekon, Leonard, 2023. "Do gifts buy votes? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).

    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:7:y:2019:i:02:p:367-384_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/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.