The American political science review
01 Jan 1906-
About: The article was published on 1906-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 578 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Political science of religion & International political economy.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A unified approach is proposed that makes it possible for researchers to preprocess data with matching and then to apply the best parametric techniques they would have used anyway and this procedure makes parametric models produce more accurate and considerably less model-dependent causal inferences.
Abstract: Although published works rarely include causal estimates from more than a few model specifications, authors usually choose the presented estimates from numerous trial runs readers never see. Given the often large variation in estimates across choices of control variables, functional forms, and other modeling assumptions, how can researchers ensure that the few estimates presented are accurate or representative? How do readers know that publications are not merely demonstrations that it is possible to find a specification that fits the author's favorite hypothesis? And how do we evaluate or even define statistical properties like unbiasedness or mean squared error when no unique model or estimator even exists? Matching methods, which offer the promise of causal inference with fewer assumptions, constitute one possible way forward, but crucial results in this fast-growing methodological literature are often grossly misinterpreted. We explain how to avoid these misinterpretations and propose a unified approach that makes it possible for researchers to preprocess data with matching (such as with the easy-to-use software we offer) and then to apply the best parametric techniques they would have used anyway. This procedure makes parametric models produce more accurate and considerably less model-dependent causal inferences.
3,601 citations
TL;DR: A survey of automated text analysis for political science can be found in this article, where the authors provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature.
Abstract: Politics and political conflict often occur in the written and spoken word. Scholars have long recognized this, but the massive costs of analyzing even moderately sized collections of texts have hindered their use in political science research. Here lies the promise of automated text analysis: it substantially reduces the costs of analyzing large collections of text. We provide a guide to this exciting new area of research and show how, in many instances, the methods have already obtained part of their promise. But there are pitfalls to using automated methods—they are no substitute for careful thought and close reading and require extensive and problem-specific validation. We survey a wide range of new methods, provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models, and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature. To conclude, we argue that for automated text methods to become a standard tool for political scientists, methodologists must contribute new methods and new methods of validation. Language is the medium for politics and political conflict. Candidates debate and state policy positions during a campaign. Once elected, representatives write and debate legislation. After laws are passed, bureaucrats solicit comments before they issue regulations. Nations regularly negotiate and then sign peace treaties, with language that signals the motivations and relative power of the countries involved. News reports document the day-to-day affairs of international relations that provide a detailed picture of conflict and cooperation. Individual candidates and political parties articulate their views through party platforms and manifestos. Terrorist groups even reveal their preferences and goals through recruiting materials, magazines, and public statements. These examples, and many others throughout political science, show that to understand what politics is about we need to know what political actors are saying and writing. Recognizing that language is central to the study of politics is not new. To the contrary, scholars of politics have long recognized that much of politics is expressed in words. But scholars have struggled when using texts to make inferences about politics. The primary problem is volume: there are simply too many political texts. Rarely are scholars able to manually read all the texts in even moderately sized corpora. And hiring coders to manually read all documents is still very expensive. The result is that
2,044 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: This work adapts an algorithm and uses it to implement a general-purpose, multiple imputation model for missing data that is considerably faster and easier to use than the leading method recommended in the statistics literature.
Abstract: We propose a remedy for the discrepancy between the way political scientists analyze data with missing values and the recommendations of the statistics community. Methodologists and statisticians agree that "multiple imputation" is a superior approach to the problem of missing data scattered through one's explanatory and dependent variables than the methods currently used in applied data analysis. The discrepancy occurs because the computational algorithms used to apply the best multiple imputation models have been slow, difficult to implement, impossible to run with existing commercial statistical packages, and have demanded considerable expertise. We adapt an algorithm and use it to implement a general-purpose, multiple imputation model for missing data. This algorithm is considerably easier to use than the leading method recommended in statistics literature. We also quantify the risks of current missing data practices, illustrate how to use the new procedure, and evaluate this alternative through simulated data as well as actual empirical examples. Finally, we offer easy-to-use that implements our suggested methods.
1,691 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of missing values are illustrated for a linear model, and a series of recommendations are provided for missing values can produce biased estimates, distorted statistical power, and invalid conclusions.
Abstract: Less than optimum strategies for missing values can produce biased estimates, distorted statistical power, and invalid conclusions. After reviewing traditional approaches (listwise, pairwise, and mean substitution), selected alternatives are covered including single imputation, multiple imputation, and full information maximum likelihood estimation. The effects of missing values are illustrated for a linear model, and a series of recommendations is provided. When missing values cannot be avoided, multiple imputation and full information methods offer substantial improvements over traditional approaches. Selected results using SPSS, NORM, Stata (mvis/micombine), and Mplus are included as is a table of available software and an appendix with examples of programs for Stata and Mplus.
1,687 citations
TL;DR: A Stata implementation of coarsened exact matching, a new method for improving the estimation of causal effects by reducing imbalance in covariates between treated and control groups, is introduced.
Abstract: In this article, we introduce a Stata implementation of coarsened exact matching, a new method for improving the estimation of causal effects by reduc- ing imbalance in covariates between treated and control groups. Coarsened exact matching is faster, is easier to use and understand, requires fewer assumptions, is more easily automated, and possesses more attractive statistical properties for many applications than do existing matching methods. In coarsened exact match- ing, users temporarily coarsen their data, exact match on these coarsened data, and then run their analysis on the uncoarsened, matched data. Coarsened exact matching bounds the degree of model dependence and causal effect estimation er- ror by ex ante user choice, is monotonic imbalance bounding (so that reducing the maximum imbalance on one variable has no effect on others), does not require a separate procedure to restrict data to common support, meets the congruence prin- ciple, is approximately invariant to measurement error, balances all nonlinearities and interactions in sample (i.e., not merely in expectation), and works with mul- tiply imputed datasets. Other matching methods inherit many of the coarsened exact matching method's properties when applied to further match data prepro- cessed by coarsened exact matching. The cem command implements the coarsened exact matching algorithm in Stata.
1,236 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A unified approach is proposed that makes it possible for researchers to preprocess data with matching and then to apply the best parametric techniques they would have used anyway and this procedure makes parametric models produce more accurate and considerably less model-dependent causal inferences.
Abstract: Although published works rarely include causal estimates from more than a few model specifications, authors usually choose the presented estimates from numerous trial runs readers never see. Given the often large variation in estimates across choices of control variables, functional forms, and other modeling assumptions, how can researchers ensure that the few estimates presented are accurate or representative? How do readers know that publications are not merely demonstrations that it is possible to find a specification that fits the author's favorite hypothesis? And how do we evaluate or even define statistical properties like unbiasedness or mean squared error when no unique model or estimator even exists? Matching methods, which offer the promise of causal inference with fewer assumptions, constitute one possible way forward, but crucial results in this fast-growing methodological literature are often grossly misinterpreted. We explain how to avoid these misinterpretations and propose a unified approach that makes it possible for researchers to preprocess data with matching (such as with the easy-to-use software we offer) and then to apply the best parametric techniques they would have used anyway. This procedure makes parametric models produce more accurate and considerably less model-dependent causal inferences.
3,601 citations
TL;DR: A survey of automated text analysis for political science can be found in this article, where the authors provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature.
Abstract: Politics and political conflict often occur in the written and spoken word. Scholars have long recognized this, but the massive costs of analyzing even moderately sized collections of texts have hindered their use in political science research. Here lies the promise of automated text analysis: it substantially reduces the costs of analyzing large collections of text. We provide a guide to this exciting new area of research and show how, in many instances, the methods have already obtained part of their promise. But there are pitfalls to using automated methods—they are no substitute for careful thought and close reading and require extensive and problem-specific validation. We survey a wide range of new methods, provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models, and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature. To conclude, we argue that for automated text methods to become a standard tool for political scientists, methodologists must contribute new methods and new methods of validation. Language is the medium for politics and political conflict. Candidates debate and state policy positions during a campaign. Once elected, representatives write and debate legislation. After laws are passed, bureaucrats solicit comments before they issue regulations. Nations regularly negotiate and then sign peace treaties, with language that signals the motivations and relative power of the countries involved. News reports document the day-to-day affairs of international relations that provide a detailed picture of conflict and cooperation. Individual candidates and political parties articulate their views through party platforms and manifestos. Terrorist groups even reveal their preferences and goals through recruiting materials, magazines, and public statements. These examples, and many others throughout political science, show that to understand what politics is about we need to know what political actors are saying and writing. Recognizing that language is central to the study of politics is not new. To the contrary, scholars of politics have long recognized that much of politics is expressed in words. But scholars have struggled when using texts to make inferences about politics. The primary problem is volume: there are simply too many political texts. Rarely are scholars able to manually read all the texts in even moderately sized corpora. And hiring coders to manually read all documents is still very expensive. The result is that
2,044 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: This work adapts an algorithm and uses it to implement a general-purpose, multiple imputation model for missing data that is considerably faster and easier to use than the leading method recommended in the statistics literature.
Abstract: We propose a remedy for the discrepancy between the way political scientists analyze data with missing values and the recommendations of the statistics community. Methodologists and statisticians agree that "multiple imputation" is a superior approach to the problem of missing data scattered through one's explanatory and dependent variables than the methods currently used in applied data analysis. The discrepancy occurs because the computational algorithms used to apply the best multiple imputation models have been slow, difficult to implement, impossible to run with existing commercial statistical packages, and have demanded considerable expertise. We adapt an algorithm and use it to implement a general-purpose, multiple imputation model for missing data. This algorithm is considerably easier to use than the leading method recommended in statistics literature. We also quantify the risks of current missing data practices, illustrate how to use the new procedure, and evaluate this alternative through simulated data as well as actual empirical examples. Finally, we offer easy-to-use that implements our suggested methods.
1,691 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of missing values are illustrated for a linear model, and a series of recommendations are provided for missing values can produce biased estimates, distorted statistical power, and invalid conclusions.
Abstract: Less than optimum strategies for missing values can produce biased estimates, distorted statistical power, and invalid conclusions. After reviewing traditional approaches (listwise, pairwise, and mean substitution), selected alternatives are covered including single imputation, multiple imputation, and full information maximum likelihood estimation. The effects of missing values are illustrated for a linear model, and a series of recommendations is provided. When missing values cannot be avoided, multiple imputation and full information methods offer substantial improvements over traditional approaches. Selected results using SPSS, NORM, Stata (mvis/micombine), and Mplus are included as is a table of available software and an appendix with examples of programs for Stata and Mplus.
1,687 citations
TL;DR: A Stata implementation of coarsened exact matching, a new method for improving the estimation of causal effects by reducing imbalance in covariates between treated and control groups, is introduced.
Abstract: In this article, we introduce a Stata implementation of coarsened exact matching, a new method for improving the estimation of causal effects by reduc- ing imbalance in covariates between treated and control groups. Coarsened exact matching is faster, is easier to use and understand, requires fewer assumptions, is more easily automated, and possesses more attractive statistical properties for many applications than do existing matching methods. In coarsened exact match- ing, users temporarily coarsen their data, exact match on these coarsened data, and then run their analysis on the uncoarsened, matched data. Coarsened exact matching bounds the degree of model dependence and causal effect estimation er- ror by ex ante user choice, is monotonic imbalance bounding (so that reducing the maximum imbalance on one variable has no effect on others), does not require a separate procedure to restrict data to common support, meets the congruence prin- ciple, is approximately invariant to measurement error, balances all nonlinearities and interactions in sample (i.e., not merely in expectation), and works with mul- tiply imputed datasets. Other matching methods inherit many of the coarsened exact matching method's properties when applied to further match data prepro- cessed by coarsened exact matching. The cem command implements the coarsened exact matching algorithm in Stata.
1,236 citations