
Contents
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17A. Zaller’s Original Evaluation 17A. Zaller’s Original Evaluation
-
17B. The Quality of Existing Interviewer Assessments 17B. The Quality of Existing Interviewer Assessments
-
17C. Implications for General Ignorance Claims Based on Interviewer Assessments 17C. Implications for General Ignorance Claims Based on Interviewer Assessments
-
17D. Using What We Have Learned to Better Interpret the Past 17D. Using What We Have Learned to Better Interpret the Past
-
17E. Conclusion 17E. Conclusion
-
I agree. I agree.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24017 Assessing Information Assessments
Get access-
Published:January 2016
Cite
Abstract
While many analysts use PK scales to make claims about what people know and why it matters, others use subjective interviewer assessments. The ANES is a common source of these assessments. The ANES asks its interviewers to offer “a five-level summary evaluation of each respondent’s level of information level.” Interviewers rate each respondent as “very high,” “high,” “average,” “fairly low,” or “very low.” Data from these assessments appear in widely cited academic articles on political ignorance. In one such article, Bartels (1996: 203) argues that this variable’s use is preferable to PK scales. He claims that interviewer assessments are . . . no less (and sometimes more) strongly related than factual information scales are to relevant criterion values such as political interest, education, registration, and turnout (Zaller 1985: 4). Given the added difficulty of making comparisons from one election year to another using scales based on rather different sets of available information items of variable quality, the simpler interviewer ratings seem preferable for my purposes here. . . . Other scholars have augmented the case for using interviewer assessments in attempts to understand the relationship between knowledge and other factors. As Claassen and Highton (2006: 415) write: . . . To measure political information, we rely on NES interviewer ratings of respondents’ levels of political information. This indicator has two primary virtues. First, it is present in each of the surveys we analyze providing a consistent measure across survey years. Second, it has proven to be a valid measure. Bartels used it to provide important insights into public opinion toward information effects in presidential voting (Bartels, 1996). Given our focus on changing information effects over time, we share the view that because of the “added difficulty of making comparisons from one election year to another using scales based on rather different sets of available information items of variable quality, the simpler interviewer ratings seem preferable.” . . . In a footnote (2006: 415n), they continue the argument: . . . For the purposes of this paper, we also prefer the interviewer rating to measures of policy specific information. . . .
Sign in
Personal account
- Sign in with email/username & password
- Get email alerts
- Save searches
- Purchase content
- Activate your purchase/trial code
- Add your ORCID iD
Purchase
Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.
Purchasing informationMonth: | Total Views: |
---|---|
October 2022 | 1 |
November 2022 | 2 |
January 2023 | 2 |
May 2023 | 2 |
August 2023 | 2 |
November 2023 | 1 |
May 2024 | 2 |
June 2024 | 3 |
July 2024 | 2 |
September 2024 | 5 |
January 2025 | 2 |
March 2025 | 2 |
April 2025 | 2 |
Get help with access
Institutional access
Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:
IP based access
Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.
Sign in through your institution
Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.
If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.
Sign in with a library card
Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.
Society Members
Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:
Sign in through society site
Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:
If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.
Sign in using a personal account
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.
Personal account
A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.
Viewing your signed in accounts
Click the account icon in the top right to:
Signed in but can't access content
Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.
Institutional account management
For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.