Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:11:03.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reporting Balance Tables, Response Rates and Manipulation Checks in Experimental Research: A Reply from the Committee that Prepared the Reporting Guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2016

Alan S. Gerber ,
Kevin Arceneaux ,
Cheryl Boudreau ,
Conor Dowling  and
D. Sunshine Hillygus
Alan S. Gerber
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, e-mail: alan.gerber@yale.edu
Kevin Arceneaux
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Cheryl Boudreau
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Conor Dowling
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
D. Sunshine Hillygus
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Response
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Winter 2015 , pp. 216 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altman, Doug. 2005. Adjustment for Covariate Imbalance. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, eds. Armitage, P. and Colton, T.. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Barabas, Jason, Jerit, Jennifer, and Paez, Carlos. 2015. “Representative Experiments: Using Registration-Based Sampling to Explore the Generalizability of Causal Effects.” Presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers, Hollywood, FL.Google Scholar
Broockman, David, Kalla, J., and Aronow, P.. 2015. “Irregularities in LaCour (2014).” Stanford University. http://stanford.edu/~dbroock/broockman_kall_aronow_lg_irregularities.pdf.Google Scholar
Bruhn, Miriam and McKenzie, David. 2009. “In Pursuit of Balance: Randomization in Practice in Development Field Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (4): 200–32.Google Scholar
Callegaro, Mario and DiSogra, Charles. 2008. “Computing Response Metrics for Online Panels.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (5): 1008–1032.Google Scholar
Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., Göritz, A., Krosnick, J. A., and Lavrakas, P. J., eds. 2014. Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Chang, L. and Krosnick, J. A.. 2009. “National Surveys via RDD Telephone Interviewing vs. the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4): 641–678.Google Scholar
LaCour, Michael J. and Green, Donald P.. 2014. “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality.” Science 346 (6215): 1366–9.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 2007. Identification for Prediction and Decision. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. and Pemantle, Robin. 2015. “Standard for Experimental Research: Encouraging a Better Understanding of Experimental Methods.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2): 192–215.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 2008. “Comment: The Design and Analysis of Gold Standard Randomized Experiments.” The Journal of the American Statistical Association 103 (484): 1350–3.Google Scholar
Schulz, Kenneth F., Altman, Douglas G., and Moher, David. 2010. “CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials.” Annals of Internal Medicine 152 (11): 726–32.Google Scholar
Yeager, David S., Krosnick, Jon A., Chang, LinChiat, Javitz, Harold S., Levendusky, Matthew S., Simpser, Alberto, and Wang, Rui. 2011. “Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (4): 709–47.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gerber supplementary material

Gerber supplementary material 1

Download Gerber supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 410.4 KB