Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research

By R. Adcock, David Collier. 2001

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Natural Language Processing

Citations in the corpus

Stereotyping Norwegian Salmon: An Inventory of Pitfalls in Fairness Benchmark Datasets (2021, background): “To assess whether these benchmark datasets help measure the extent to which NLP systems reproduce stereotypes, we analyze them through the lens of measurement modeling (Jacobs and Wallach, 2021), which originates from the social sciences (Adcock and Collier, 2001).”
Measuring Polarization with Text Analysis: Evidence from the UK House of Commons, 1811–2015 (2019, background): “It is divided into three types of validity (face, convergent, and construct), and includes several tests for each type.5 5 For a discussion of di erent types of measurement validity in political science, see Adcock and Collier (2001).”
Travel Time and Subjective Well-Being (2013, background): “In social science parlance, this is evidence of convergent validity (18).”
Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type (2010, background): “The overall picture from the reliability comparison is encouraging for those scholars who argue for democracy scale agnosticism (Adcock and Collier 2001).”
Can we Rate Public Support for Democracy in a Comparable Way? Cross-National Equivalence of Democratic Attitudes in the World Value Survey (2011, background): “The proliferation of cross-national surveys emphasizes the need to pay more attention to issues of equivalence (Adcock and Collier 2001; Heath et al. 2005; King et al. 2004).”
Party Positions from Wikipedia Classifications of Party Ideology (2019, background): “7 Validation with Expert Surveys Having established our estimates’ face validity, we now consider their convergent and discriminant validity (cf. Adcock and Collier 2001).”
Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis (2009, background): “See Adcock and Collier (2001).”
Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria (2005, background): “As Adcock and Collier (2001) showed for political science, depending on the context of observations (e.g., different countries), empirical domains need to be refocused and indicators need to be adjusted to measure similar concepts.”
MNE institutional advantage: How subunits shape, transpose and evade host country institutions (2014, background): “…by both sharpening findings from the within-case MNE institutional advantage Patrick Regnér and Jesper Edman 281 Journal of International Business Studies studies, and generating new concepts from the systematic combination of various case aspects (Adcock & Collier, 2001; Collier & Mahon, 1993).”
Is Social Capital a Good Concept? (2012, unknown): “In the ideal process outlined by Adcock and Collier (2001), the emergence of fragile and unreliable empirical findings would necessarily lead to two types of scientific response.”
Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) and model specification: Benchmarks for future csQCA applications (2010, background): “Adcock and Collier (2001) provide interesting guidance on concept-development as well as Goertz’s (2006) recent contribution to concept development, refi nement and measurement.”
Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools (2020, background): “…the question of external validity; second, establishing measurement and, more generally, internal validity; and third, adopting a mode of reasoning (Adcock and Collier 2001; Blatter and Blume 2008; Brady and Collier 2010; Cook and Campbell 1979; King, Keohane, and Verba 1994; Maggetti, Radaelli,…”