This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by ALWIN, D. F. Articles by KROSNICK, J. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Reliability of Survey Attitude Measurement

The Influence of Question and Respondent Attributes

University of Michigan

JON A. KROSNICK

Ohio State University

Several theoretical hypotheses are developed concerning the relation of question and respondent characteristics to the reliability of survey attitude measurement. To test these hypotheses, reliability is estimated for 96 survey attitude measures using data from five, 3-wave national reinterview surveys-three Michigan Election Panel Surveys and two reinterview studies conducted by the General Social Survey. As hypothesized, a number of attributes of questions are linked to estimated reliability. Attitude questions with more response options tended to have higher reliabilities, although there are some important exceptions. More extensive verbal labeling of numbered response options was found to be associated with higher reliability, but questions explicitly offering a "don't know" alternative were not found to be more reliable. Question characteristics were confounded to an unknown degree with topic differences of questions, which were significantly linked to reliability, leaving the influence of question characteristics on reliability somewhat ambiguous. Characteristics of respondents were also found to be related to levels of reliability. Older respondents and those with less schooling provided the least reliable attitude reports. These results are discussed within a general framework for the consideration of survey errors and their sources.

Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, 139-181 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124191020001005


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. I. Pettersen, M. Veenstra, B. Guldvog, and A. Kolstad The Patient Experiences Questionnaire: development, validity and reliability Int. J. Qual. Health Care, December 1, 2004; 16(6): 453 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. C. M. Lam, K. E. Green, and C. Bordignon Effects of Item Grouping and Position of the "Don't Know" Option on Questionnaire Response Field Methods, November 1, 2002; 14(4): 418 - 432. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. F. ALWIN Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales: Which are Better? Sociological Methods Research, February 1, 1997; 25(3): 318 - 340. [Abstract]

				A. C. SCHERPENZEEL and W. E. SARIS The Validity and Reliability of Survey Questions: A Meta-Analysis of MTMM Studies Sociological Methods Research, February 1, 1997; 25(3): 341 - 383. [Abstract]

				J. J. HOX Hierarchical Regression Models for Interviewer and Respondent Effects Sociological Methods Research, February 1, 1994; 22(3): 300 - 318. [Abstract]

				M. J. McCLENDON and D. F. ALWIN No-Opinion Filters and Attitude Measurement Reliability Sociological Methods Research, May 1, 1993; 21(4): 438 - 464. [Abstract]