Advertisement

Probing und Mixed Mode Eine Evaluationsstudie zur Güte der Mittel-Kategorie der Links-Rechts Skala

  • Volker HüfkenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute book series (SASI)

Zusammenfassung

Ein seit Jahrzehnten kontrovers geführtes Thema ist die Frage nach der Notwendigkeit einer Mittel-Kategorie und ihres Einflusses auf die Messqualität (u.a. Schuman und Presser 1981, Krosnick und Presser 2010). Insbesondere Untersuchungsergebnisse zu bipolaren Ratingskalen spiegeln unterschiedliche Positionen wider. So wird berichtet, dass bei fehlender Mittelkategorie Befragte mit einer neutralen, mittleren bzw. moderaten Einstellung oder Orientierung ihre tatsächliche Auffassung nicht zum Ausdruck bringen können, ja vermutlich sogar zu einer inhaltlich falschen Antwort gezwungen werden (Sturgis et al. 2014).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. AAPOR (2011) Standard definitions final dispostions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, R., Vries, C. de, Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Marks, G., Polk, J., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M., & Vachudova., M.A. (2015). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999-2010. Party Politics 21, 143-152.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, D., & Stokes, D.E. (1969). Political Change in Britain. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  4. Chang, L., & Krosnick, J.A. (2009). National Surveys via RDD Telephone Interviewing versus the Internet. Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality. Public Opinion Quarterly 73, 641-678.Google Scholar
  5. Converse, P.E., & Pierce, R. (1973). „Basic Cleavages in French Politics and the Disorders of May and June, 1968,“ In R. Rose (Hg.), Political Bahaviour in Western Societies. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Faas, T., & Schoen, H. (2006). Putting a Questionnaire on the Web is not Enough – A Comparison of Online and Offline Surveys Conducted in the Context of the German Federal Election 2002. Journal of Official Statistics 22, 177-190.Google Scholar
  7. Fowler, F.J., & Mangione, T. (1990). Standarized Survey Interviewing. Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. Newbury Park: SageGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuchs, M., & Busse, B. (2009). The coverage bias of mobile web surveys across European countries. International Journal of Internet Science 4, 21-33.Google Scholar
  9. Fuchs, D, & Klingemann H.D. (1990). The Left-Right Schema. In K. Jennings, J. v. Deth, Barnes, S.H., Fuchs, D., Heunks, F.J., Inglehart, R., Kaase, M., Klingemann, H-D, Thomassen, J.A. (Hrsg.), Continuities in Political Action - A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies (S. 203-234). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Gabler, S. Häder. S. (1997). Überlegungen zu einem Stichprobendesign für Telefonumfragen in Deutschland. ZUMA-Nachrichten 41.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffmann, H., & Rosar, U. (2013). Ist die Veröffentlichung von Vorwahlumfragen schädlich für kleinere Parteien? Eine Untersuchung anhand eines Online-Experiments zur nordrhein-westfälischen Landtagswahl 2012. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Deutsches und Internationales Parteienrecht und Parteienforschung 19, 83-94.Google Scholar
  12. Holbrook, A. L., Johnson, T., Cho, Y.I., Shavitt, S., Chavez, N., & Weiner, S. (2016). Do Interviewer Errors Help Explain the Impact of Question Characteristics on Respondent Difficulties? Survey Practice 9, 1-11. Google Scholar
  13. Huber, J., & Inglehart, R. (1995). Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies. Party Politics 1, 73-111.Google Scholar
  14. Hüfken, V. (2009). Non-coverage in Telephone Surveys and Health Estimates: Evaluating the need for a dual frame. New Techniques and Technologies in Statistics (NTTS) 2009, Eurostat, 18-20.02., Brussels, Belgium. Available under: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/1001617/4398468/POSTER-1P-NON-COVERAGE-AND-HEALTH-TELEPHONE-SURVEYESTIM.pdf. Zugegriffen: 26. Juli 2016.
  15. Hüfken, V. (2010). Public Opinion Polls and estimates in some European countries. Non-Coverage Bias in Telephone Surveys. In JSM Proceedings, Statistical Computing Section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Abrufbar unter: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2010/Files/400092.pdf. Zugegriffen: 26. Jli 2016
  16. Hüfken, V. (2012). Interviewers Personality and the Impact on the Participation in Telephone Interviews. 8th International Conference on Social Science Methodology (RC 33), Survey Nonresponse – Problems and Circumventions, Dodges, and Novel Attempts, July 9-13. Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Hüfken, V. (2013). Evaluating the left-right dimension: Category Selection Probing conducted in an online access panel and a CATI-Survey. 66th Annual Conference of the Word Association for Public opinion Research (WAPOR), May 14-16, Boston MA, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  18. Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H-D. (1976). Party Identification, Ideological Preferences and the Left-Right Dimension among Western Mass Publics. In I. Budge et al. (Hrsg.), Party Identification and Beyond: Representations of Voting and Party Competition (S. 243-273). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Klar, S. (2014). A Multidimensional Study of Ideological Preferences and Priorities among the American Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 78, 344-359.Google Scholar
  20. Klingemann, H-D. (1979). Measuring Ideological Conceptualisations. In S.H. Barnes, & M. Kaase (Hrsg.), Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies (S. 215-254). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Klingemann, H-D. (1997). The Left-Right Self-Placement Question in Face-to-Face and Telephone Surveys. In W. Saris, & M. Kaase (Hrsg.), Eurobarometer. Measurement Instruments for Opinions in Europe. (S. 100-110). Mannheim: GESIS Spezial Bd. 2.Google Scholar
  22. Kroh, M. (2007). Measuring Left-Right Political Orientation: The Choice of Response Format. Public Opinion Quarterly 71, 204-220.Google Scholar
  23. Krosnick, J.A., & Alwin, D.F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 201-219.Google Scholar
  24. Krosnick, J.A. (2002). The causes of no-opinion responses to attitude measures in surveys: They are rarely what they appear to be. In R.M. Groves, Don A. Dillman, John N. Eltinge, & R.J.A. Little (Hrsg.), Survey Nonresponse (S. 88-100). New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  25. Krosnick, J.A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and Questionnaire design. In J.D. Wright, & P.V. Marsden (Hrsg.), Handbook of Survey Research (Second Edition) (S. 263-313). West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  26. Krosnick, J.A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213-236.Google Scholar
  27. Martinez, M.D, Craig, S.C., Kane, J.G., & Gainous, J. (2005). Ambivalence and Value Conflict: A Test of Two Issues. In S.C. Craig, & M.D. Martinez (Hrsg.), Ambivalence, Politics, and Public Policy (S.63-82). New York: PalgraveGoogle Scholar
  28. Nijens, P. (2004). Coping with the Nonattitudes Phenomenon: A Survey Research Approach. In W. Saris, & P.M. Sniderman (Hrsg.) Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change (S. 295-313). Princeton: University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Rottinghaus, B., & Hüfken, V. (2013). Methodological Strategies to reduce invalid Response in Telephone Surveys concerning the Center-Category of the Left-Right-Dimension (with B. Rottinghaus). 5th European Survey Research Association (ESRA), July 15-19, Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  30. Smith H.L., & Hyman, H. (1950). The Biasing Effect of Interviewer Expectations on Survey Results. Public Opinion Quarterly 14, 491-506.Google Scholar
  31. Smyth, J.D., Dillman, D.A., Christian, L.M., & Stern, M.J. (2006). Comparing check-alland forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 66–77.Google Scholar
  32. Schuman, H. (1966). The Random Probe: A Technique for Evaluating the Validity of Closed Questions. American Sociological Review 31, 218-222.Google Scholar
  33. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Order and Context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schumann, H., & Scott J. (1987). Problems in the Use of Survey Questions to Measure Public Opinion. Science 4804, 957-959.Google Scholar
  35. Schuman, H. (2008). Method and Meaning in Polls and Surveys. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shikano, S. (2010). Einführung in die Inferenz durch den nichtparametrischen Bootstrap. In C. Wolf, H. Best (Hrsg.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanaylse (S.191-204). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Sturgis, P., Roberts, C., & Smith, P. (2014). Middle alternatives revisited: How the neither/nor response acts as a way of saying „I don‘t know“? Sociological Methods & Research 43, 15-38.Google Scholar
  38. Visser, P.S., Krosnick, J.A., Marquette, J., & Curtin, M. (2000). Improving election forecasting: Allocation of undecided respondents, identification of likely voters, and response order effects. In P. Lavrakas, & M. Traugott (Hrsg.), Election polls, the news media, and democracy (S. 224-260). New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  39. Wegener, B. (1980). Magnitude-Messung in Umfragen: Kontexteffekte und Methode. ZUMA-Nachrichten 6, 4-40.Google Scholar
  40. Zaller, J.R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Züll, C., & Scholz, E. (2012). Assoziationen mit den politischen Richtungsbegriffen „links“ und „rechts“ im internationalen Vergleich. Kategorienschema für die Codierung offener Angaben. Mannheim: GESIS, Technical Reports 2012|03.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfDeutschland

Personalised recommendations