Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-54lbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-29T15:30:53.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Consensus on Second-Stage Analyses in Ecological Inference Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Christopher Adolph ,
Gary King ,
Michael C. Herron  and
Kenneth W. Shotts
Christopher Adolph
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. e-mail: cadolph@fas.harvard.edu
Gary King
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. e-mail: king@harvard.edu
Michael C. Herron
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208-1006. e-mail: m-herron@northwestern.edu
Kenneth W. Shotts
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208-1006. e-mail: k-shotts@northwestern.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since Herron and Shotts (2003a; hereinafter HS), Adolph and King (2003; hereinafter AK), and Herron and Shotts (2003b; hereinafter HS2), the four of us have iterated many more times, learned a great deal, and arrived at a consensus on this issue. This paper describes our joint recommendations for how to run second-stage ecological regressions, and provides detailed analyses to back up our claims.

Information

Type
Using EI in Second-Stage Regressions
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 2003 , pp. 86 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

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

Adolph, Christopher, and King, Gary. 2003. “Analyzing Second-Stage Ecological Regressions: Comment on Herron and Shotts.” Political Analysis 11:65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1994. “A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans.” American Journal of Political Science 38:514–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Michael C., and Shotts, Kenneth W. 2003a. “Using Ecological Inference Point Estimates as Dependent Variables in Second-Stage Linear Regressions.” Political Analysis 11:44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Michael C., and Shotts, Kenneth W. 2003b. “Cross-Contamination in EI-R: Reply.” Political Analysis 11:77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Murray, Joshua Salomon, Christopher, and Tandon, Ajay. 2002. “Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Survey Research.” Manuscript. (Available from http://gking.harvard.edu.) Google Scholar
Korn, E. L., and Graubard, B. I. 1998. “Variance Estimation for Superpopulation Parameters.” Statistica Sinica 8:1131–1151.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B. 2000. “Two-Stage Approaches to Regression Models in which the Dependent Variable Is Based on Estimates.” Working paper, University of California-Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Rao, J. N. K. 1999. “Some Current Trends in Sample Survey Theory and Methods.” Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics 61, Series B, Pt. 1:1–57.Google Scholar