Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:06:32.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideal Point Estimation with a Small Number of Votes: A Random-Effects Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Michael Bailey
Michael Bailey*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, ICC, Suite 681, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. e-mail: baileyma@gunet.georgetown.eduhttp://www.georgetown.edu/bailey/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many conventional ideal point estimation techniques are inappropriate when only a limited number of votes are available. This paper presents a covariate-based random-effects Bayesian approach that allows scholars to estimate ideal points based on fewer votes than required for fixed-effects models. Using covariates brings more information to bear on the estimation; using a Bayesian random-effects approach avoids incidental parameter problems. Among other things, the method allows us to estimate directly the effect of covariates such as party on preferences and to estimate standard errors for ideal points. Monte Carlo results, an empirical application, and a discussion of further applications demonstrate the usefulness of the method.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , January 2001 , pp. 192 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by the Society for Political Methodology 

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

Anderson, E. 1972. “The Numerical Solution of a Set of Conditional Estimation Equations.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 34: 42–54.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael. 2001. “Quiet Influence: The Representation of Diffuse Interests on Trade Policy, 1983–1994.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and Chang, Kelly. 2000. “Mimicry and Extremism: The Inter-Institutional Politics of Supreme Court Appointments.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and Rivers, Doug. 1997. “Ideal Point Estimation: A Survey.” Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
Baker, Frank. 1992. Item Response Theory. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, A. 1968. “Some Latent Trait Models and Their Use in Inferring an Examinee's Ability.” In Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. eds. Lord, Frederic and Novick, M. R. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bock, R. Darrell, and Aitkin, M. 1981. “Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Item Parameters: An Application of an EM Algorithm.” Psychometrika 46: 443–459.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, Gary. 1980. “Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data.” Review of Economic Studies 47: 225–238.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Doug. 2000. “The Statistical Analysis of Legislative Behavior: A Unified Approach.” Paper presented at the Summer Methodology Meetings, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rubin, Donald. 1977. “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm (with Discussion).” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 39: 1–38.Google Scholar
Drasgow, Fritz. 1989. “An Evaluation of Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the Two-Parameter Logistic Model.” Applied Psychological Measurement 13: 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, William. 1997. Econometric Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, Levitt, Steven, and Snyder, James. 1999. “Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress.” American Political Science Review 93: 33–50.Google Scholar
Haberman, S. J. 1977. “Maximum Likelihood Estimates in Exponential Response Models.” Annals of Statistics 5: 815–841.Google Scholar
Heckman, James, and Snyder, James. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” RAND Journal of Economics 28 (Special Issue): S142–S189.Google Scholar
Herron, Michael. 2000. “Cutpoint-Adjusted Interest Group Ratings.” Political Analysis 8: 346–366.Google Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2000a. “Estimation and Inference Are Missing Data Problems: Unifying Social Science Statistics via Bayesian Simulation.” Political Analysis 8: 307–332.Google Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2000b. “Estimation and Inference via Bayesian Simulation: An Introduction to Markov Chain Monte Carlo.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 369–398.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review 95: 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Constituency Characteristics and Legislative Preferences.” Public Choice 76: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, and Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “The Analysis of Committee Power.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 1151–1174.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jefrey. 1998. “Estimating Voter Preference Distributions from Individual-Level Voting Data (with Application to Split-Ticket Voting).” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Londregan, John. 2000. “Estimating Legislators’ Preferred Points.” Political Analysis 8: 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1987. “Limited Dependent Variable Models Using Panel Data.” Journal of Human Resources 22: 305–348.Google Scholar
McLachlan, Geoffrey, and Krishnan, Thriyambakam. 1997. The EM Algorithm and Extensions. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Mislevy, Robert. 1987. “Exploiting Auxiliary Information About Examinees in the Estimation of Item Parameters.” Applied Psychological Measurement 11: 81–91.Google Scholar
Mislevy, Robert, and Darrell Bock, R. 1990. “BILOG 3: Item Analysis and Test Scoring with Binary Logistic Models” [computer program]. Mooresville IN: Scientific Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Mislevy, Robert, and Sheehan, Kathleen. 1989. “The Role of Collateral Information About Examinees in Item Parameter Estimation.” Psychometrika 54: 661–679.Google Scholar
Neyman, J., and Scott, Elizabeth. 1948. “Consistent Estimates Based on Partially Consistent Observations.” Econometrika 16: 1–32.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith. 2000. “The Geometry of Multidimensional Quadratic Utility in Models of Parliamentary Roll Call Voting.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 228–278.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Alastair, and McGillivray, Fiona. 1996. “Senate Voting on NAFTA: The Power and Limitations of MCMC Methods for Studying Voting Across Bills and Across States.” Paper presented at the Summer Methodology Meeting, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Snyder, James. 1992. “Artificial Extremism in Interest Group Ratings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsutakawa, Robert, and Lin, Hsin Ying. 1986. “Bayesian Estimation of Item Response Curves.” Psychometrika 51: 251–267.Google Scholar
Wu, C. F. Jeff. 1983. “On the Convergence Properties of the EM Algorithm.” Annals of Statistics 11: 95–103.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher. 2001. “Generalized Estimating Equation Models for Correlated Data: A Review with Applications.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 470–490.Google Scholar
Zwinderman, Aeilko. 1991. “A Generalized Rasch Model for Manifest Predictors.” Psychometrika 56: 589–600.Google Scholar
Zwinderman, Aeilko. 1997. “Response Models with Manifest Predictors. In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, eds. van der Linden, and Hambleton, . New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar