Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data
dc.contributor.author | Alwin, Duane F. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-09-08T21:34:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-09-08T21:34:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1989-09 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Alwin, Duane F.; (1989). "Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data." Quality and Quantity 23 (3-4): 277-331. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/43558> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0033-5177 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1573-7845 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/43558 | |
dc.description.abstract | In this paper I discuss several of the difficulties involved in estimating the reliability of survey measurement. Reliability is defined on the basis of classical true-score theory , as the correlational consistency of multiple measures of the same construct, net of true change. This concept is presented within the framework of a theoretical discussion of the sources of error in survey data and the design requirements for separating response variation into components representing such response consistency and measurement errors. Discussion focuses on the potential sources of random and nonrandom errors, including “invalidity” of measurement, the term frequently used to refer to components of method variance. Problems with the estimation of these components are enumerated and discussed with respect to both cross-sectional and panel designs. Empirical examples are given of the estimation of the quantities of interest, which are the basis of a discussion of the interpretational difficulties encountered in reliability estimation. Data are drawn from the ISR's Quality of Life surveys, the National Election Studies and the NORC's General Social Surveys . The general conclusion is that both cross-sectional and panel estimates of measurement reliability are desirable, but for the purposes of isolating the random component of error, panel designs are probably the most advantageous. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 2713839 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3115 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Kluwer Academic Publishers; Springer Science+Business Media | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Social Sciences, General | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Methodology of the Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.title | Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Philosophy | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Social Sciences (General) | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Statistics and Numeric Data | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Humanities | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, P.O. Box 1248, 48106-1248, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A. | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus | Ann Arbor | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43558/1/11135_2004_Article_BF00172447.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00172447 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Quality and Quantity | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.