Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-21T07:42:47.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Liesbet Hooghe ,
Ryan Bakker ,
Anna Brigevich ,
Catherine De Vries ,
Erica Edwards ,
Gary Marks ,
Jan Rovny ,
Marco Steenbergen  and
Milada Vachudova
Liesbet Hooghe*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA and VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ryan Bakker
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, USA
Anna Brigevich
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Catherine De Vries
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Erica Edwards
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria, and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Gary Marks
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA and VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jan Rovny
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Marco Steenbergen
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
Milada Vachudova
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Liesbet Hooghe, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA. E‐mail: hooghe@unc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research note reports on the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys (CHES), which measure national party positioning on European integration, ideology, and several European Union (EU) and non‐EU policies. The reliability of expert judgments is examined and the CHES data are cross‐validated with data from the Comparative Manifesto Project, the 2003 Benoit‐Laver expert survey and the 2002 Rohrschneider‐Whitefield survey. The dataset is available on the CHES website.

Information

Type
Research Note
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 49 , Issue 5 , August 2010 , pp. 687 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2010 (European Consortium for Political Research)

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, R. (2008). Modern methods for robust regression. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07‐152. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adcock, R. & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95(3): 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K. & Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I. (2006). Identifying dimensions and locating parties: Methodological and conceptual problems. In Katz, R.S. & Crotty, W. (eds), Handbook of political parties. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Budge, I. et al. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors and governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, E.G. & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, C.E. & Edwards, E.E. (2009). Taking Europe to its extremes: Extremist parties and public Euroskepticism. Party Politics 15(1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorussen, H., Lenz, H. & Blavoukos, S. (2005). Assessing the reliability and validity of expert interviews. European Union Politics 6(3): 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, E. (2009). Products of their past? Cleavage theory and intra‐party dissent over European integration. Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS) Political Science Series 118. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Franklin, M. (1992). The decline of cleavage politics. In Franklin, M.N., Mackie, T.T. & Valen, H. (eds), Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gabel, M.J. & Huber, J.D. (2000). Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left‐right ideological positions from party manifestos data. American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G. (2005). Social science concepts: A user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Herrera, Y.M. & Kapur, D. (2007). Improving data quality: Actors, incentives and capabilities. Political Analysis 15(4): 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L., Marks, G. & Wilson, C. (2002). Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies 35(8): 965–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (1994). The transformation of European social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manow, P., Schäfer, A. & Zorn, H. (2008). Europe's party‐political center of gravity, 1957–2003. Journal for European Public Policy 15(1): 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G. (2007). Introduction: triangulation and the square‐root law. Electoral Studies 26(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G. & Wilson, C. (2000). The past in the present: A theory of party response to European integration. British Journal of Political Science 30(2): 433–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G. et al. (2006). Party competition and European integration in East and West: Different structure, same causality. Comparative Political Studies 39(2): 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G. et al. (2007). Cross‐validating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies 26(1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, M., Mendes, S.M. & Kim, M. (2007). Cross‐temporal and cross‐national comparisons of party left‐right positions. Electoral Studies 26(1): 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munck, G.L. & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies 35(1): 5–34.Google Scholar
Netjes, C. & Binnema, H.A. (2007). The salience of the European integration issue: Three data sources compared. Electoral Studies 26(1): 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, L. (1999). Measuring party orientation towards European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research 36(6): 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovny, J. & Edwards, E. (2008). Struggle over Dimensionality: Party Competition in Europe. Paper presented at The Politics of Change workshop, VU Amsterdam, 13–14 June.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R. & Marks, G. (2007). Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research 46(3): 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachudova, M. & Hooghe, L. (2009). Postcommunist politics in a magnetic field: How transition and EU accession structure party competition on European integration. Comparative European Politics 7(2): 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitefield, S. et al. (2007). Do expert surveys produce consistent estimates of party stances on European integration? Comparing expert surveys in the difficult case of Central and Eastern Europe. Electoral Studies 26(1): 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar