Online Surveys in Latin America

IF 2.2 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Ps-Political Science & Politics Pub Date : 2023-01-20 DOI:10.1017/S1049096522001287
Oscar Castorena, Noam Lupu, Maitagorri Schade, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister
{"title":"Online Surveys in Latin America","authors":"Oscar Castorena, Noam Lupu, Maitagorri Schade, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister","doi":"10.1017/S1049096522001287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Online surveys of public opinion are less expensive and faster to administer than other surveys. However, nonprobability online samples diverge from the gold standard of probabilistic sampling. Although scholars have examined the quality of nonprobability samples in the United States and Europe, we know little about how these samples perform in developing contexts. We use nine online surveys fielded in six Latin American countries to examine the bias in these samples. We also ask whether two common tools that researchers use to mitigate sample bias—post-stratification and sample matching—improve these online samples. We find that online samples in the region exhibit high levels of bias, even in countries where Internet access is widespread. We also find that post-stratification does little to improve sample quality; sample matching outperforms the provider’s standard approach, but the gains are substantively small. This is partly because unequal Internet access and lack of investment in panel recruitment means that providers are unlikely to have enough panelists in lower socioeconomic categories to draw representative online samples, regardless of the sampling method. Researchers who want to draw conclusions about the attitudes or behaviors of the public as a whole in contexts like Latin America still need probability samples.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001287","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Online surveys of public opinion are less expensive and faster to administer than other surveys. However, nonprobability online samples diverge from the gold standard of probabilistic sampling. Although scholars have examined the quality of nonprobability samples in the United States and Europe, we know little about how these samples perform in developing contexts. We use nine online surveys fielded in six Latin American countries to examine the bias in these samples. We also ask whether two common tools that researchers use to mitigate sample bias—post-stratification and sample matching—improve these online samples. We find that online samples in the region exhibit high levels of bias, even in countries where Internet access is widespread. We also find that post-stratification does little to improve sample quality; sample matching outperforms the provider’s standard approach, but the gains are substantively small. This is partly because unequal Internet access and lack of investment in panel recruitment means that providers are unlikely to have enough panelists in lower socioeconomic categories to draw representative online samples, regardless of the sampling method. Researchers who want to draw conclusions about the attitudes or behaviors of the public as a whole in contexts like Latin America still need probability samples.
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
拉丁美洲的在线调查
在线民意调查比其他调查成本更低,管理起来也更快。然而,非概率在线样本偏离了概率抽样的黄金标准。尽管美国和欧洲的学者已经研究了非概率样本的质量,但我们对这些样本在发展中环境中的表现知之甚少。我们使用了六个拉丁美洲国家的九个在线调查来检查这些样本中的偏差。我们还询问研究人员用来减轻样本偏差的两种常用工具——后分层和样本匹配——是否改善了这些在线样本。我们发现,该地区的在线样本显示出高度的偏见,即使在互联网接入广泛的国家也是如此。我们还发现,后分层对提高样本质量作用不大;样本匹配优于提供者的标准方法,但收益非常小。这在一定程度上是因为不平等的互联网接入和缺乏对小组招聘的投资意味着,无论采用何种抽样方法,供应商都不太可能在较低的社会经济类别中拥有足够的小组成员来抽取具有代表性的在线样本。研究人员想要得出关于拉丁美洲等地区公众整体态度或行为的结论,仍然需要概率样本。
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
Ps-Political Science & Politics
Ps-Political Science & Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
27.30%
发文量
166
期刊介绍: PS: Political Science & Politics provides critical analyses of contemporary political phenomena and is the journal of record for the discipline of political science reporting on research, teaching, and professional development. PS, begun in 1968, is the only quarterly professional news and commentary journal in the field and is the prime source of information on political scientists" achievements and professional concerns. PS: Political Science & Politics is sold ONLY as part of a joint subscription with American Political Science Review and Perspectives on Politics.
期刊最新文献
The Invincible Gender Gap in Political Ambition Logging in to Learn: The Effects of Online Civic Education Pedagogy on a Latinx and AAPI Civic Engagement Youth Conference A Case for Description COVID-19 Direct Relief Payments and Political and Economic Attitudes among Tertiary Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study – CORRIGENDUM Escalating Political Violence and the Intersectional Impacts on Latinas in National Politics
×
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