Evaluating Pre-election Polling Estimates Using a New Measure of Non-ignorable Selection Bias.

IF 2.9 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Opinion Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-06-08 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1093/poq/nfad018
Brady T West, Rebecca R Andridge
{"title":"Evaluating Pre-election Polling Estimates Using a New Measure of Non-ignorable Selection Bias.","authors":"Brady T West, Rebecca R Andridge","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among the numerous explanations that have been offered for recent errors in pre-election polls, selection bias due to non-ignorable partisan nonresponse bias, where the probability of responding to a poll is a function of the candidate preference that a poll is attempting to measure (even after conditioning on other relevant covariates used for weighting adjustments), has received relatively less focus in the academic literature. Under this type of selection mechanism, estimates of candidate preferences based on individual or aggregated polls may be subject to significant bias, even after standard weighting adjustments. Until recently, methods for measuring and adjusting for this type of non-ignorable selection bias have been unavailable. Fortunately, recent developments in the methodological literature have provided political researchers with easy-to-use measures of non-ignorable selection bias. In this study, we apply a new measure that has been developed specifically for estimated proportions to this challenging problem. We analyze data from 18 different pre-election polls: 9 different telephone polls conducted in 8 different states prior to the US presidential election in 2020, and nine different pre-election polls conducted either online or via telephone in Great Britain prior to the 2015 general election. We rigorously evaluate the ability of this new measure to detect and adjust for selection bias in estimates of the proportion of likely voters that will vote for a specific candidate, using official outcomes from each election as benchmarks and alternative data sources for estimating key characteristics of the likely voter populations in each context.</p>","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"87 Suppl 1","pages":"575-601"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10496568/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Opinion Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad018","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among the numerous explanations that have been offered for recent errors in pre-election polls, selection bias due to non-ignorable partisan nonresponse bias, where the probability of responding to a poll is a function of the candidate preference that a poll is attempting to measure (even after conditioning on other relevant covariates used for weighting adjustments), has received relatively less focus in the academic literature. Under this type of selection mechanism, estimates of candidate preferences based on individual or aggregated polls may be subject to significant bias, even after standard weighting adjustments. Until recently, methods for measuring and adjusting for this type of non-ignorable selection bias have been unavailable. Fortunately, recent developments in the methodological literature have provided political researchers with easy-to-use measures of non-ignorable selection bias. In this study, we apply a new measure that has been developed specifically for estimated proportions to this challenging problem. We analyze data from 18 different pre-election polls: 9 different telephone polls conducted in 8 different states prior to the US presidential election in 2020, and nine different pre-election polls conducted either online or via telephone in Great Britain prior to the 2015 general election. We rigorously evaluate the ability of this new measure to detect and adjust for selection bias in estimates of the proportion of likely voters that will vote for a specific candidate, using official outcomes from each election as benchmarks and alternative data sources for estimating key characteristics of the likely voter populations in each context.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用一种不可忽略的选择偏差的新方法评估选前民调估计。
在为最近选举前民意调查中的错误提供的众多解释中,由于不可忽视的党派无反应偏见造成的选择偏见,其中对民意调查的回应概率是民意调查试图衡量的候选人偏好的函数(即使在对用于权重调整的其他相关协变量进行调节之后),在学术文献中受到的关注相对较少。在这种选择机制下,即使经过标准的权重调整,基于个别或综合民意调查的候选人偏好估计也可能存在重大偏差。直到最近,还没有测量和调整这种不可忽视的选择偏差的方法。幸运的是,方法学文献的最新发展为政治研究人员提供了易于使用的测量不可忽视的选择偏差的方法。在这项研究中,我们应用了一种新的测量方法,该方法是专门为估计比例而开发的,用于解决这一具有挑战性的问题。我们分析了18个不同的选前民意调查的数据:在2020年美国总统大选之前在8个不同的州进行的9次不同的电话民意调查,以及在2015年大选之前在英国进行的9次不同的在线或电话民意调查。我们使用每次选举的官方结果作为基准和替代数据源来估计每种情况下可能的选民群体的关键特征,严格评估了这种新措施在估计将投票给特定候选人的可能选民比例时检测和调整选择偏差的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Published since 1937, Public Opinion Quarterly is among the most frequently cited journals of its kind. Such interdisciplinary leadership benefits academicians and all social science researchers by providing a trusted source for a wide range of high quality research. POQ selectively publishes important theoretical contributions to opinion and communication research, analyses of current public opinion, and investigations of methodological issues involved in survey validity—including questionnaire construction, interviewing and interviewers, sampling strategy, and mode of administration. The theoretical and methodological advances detailed in pages of POQ ensure its importance as a research resource.
期刊最新文献
The Global Crisis of Trust in Elections The Electoral Misinformation Nexus: How News Consumption, Platform Use, and Trust in News Influence Belief in Electoral Misinformation. Where Are the Sore Losers? Competitive Authoritarianism, Incumbent Defeat, and Electoral Trust in Zambia's 2021 Election. The Trump Effect? Right-Wing Populism and Distrust in Voting by Mail in Canada. Trust in the Count: Improving Voter Confidence with Post-election Audits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1