What is the best proxy for political knowledge in surveys?
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
23
02
2022
accepted:
20
07
2022
entrez:
22
8
2022
pubmed:
23
8
2022
medline:
25
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Online surveys are becoming the dominant form for survey data collection. This presents a problem for the measurement of political knowledge, because, according to recent scholarship, unsupervised measurement of political knowledge in web-based surveys suffers from respondent dishonesty. This study examines the validity of five possible survey proxies for political knowledge: self-assessed sophistication, political interest, internal political efficacy, accuracy of party placements on a left-right dimension and political participation. The analysis draws on a 2020 survey data (n = 1,097) and partial replications with identical measures from a 2008 survey data (n = 1,021) from Finland. Through several tests, the five proxies are assessed in terms of convergent validity, criterion validity and predictive validity. Across all tests, political interest performs best on all dimensions of validity and demonstrates largely identical relationships with political knowledge. Although the survey measurement of political interest and political knowledge may partly tap into slightly different constructs, the analysis supports the conclusion that political interest is the most suitable survey proxy for political knowledge from among the five proxy candidates included in the analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35994461
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272530
pii: PONE-D-22-05474
pmc: PMC9394832
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0272530Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Multivariate Behav Res. 2009 May;44(3):362-388
pubmed: 20234802
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Aug;49(4):1444-1459
pubmed: 27573006