Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Revisiting Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress, 1947–2007

  • Sarah Anderson (a1) and Philip Habel (a2)

Abstract

This paper replicates and extends Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder, “Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress,” which appeared in the American Political Science Review (1999/93:33–50). We replicate the most recent unpublished extension by Dr. Groseclose and research assistants for years 1947–1999, and then we extend the analysis to include years 2000 through 2007. We make available inflation-adjusted ADA scores from 1947 through 2007, allowing scholars to incorporate the most recent interest group scores into their analyses.

Copyright

Corresponding author

e-mail: sanderson@bren.ucsb.edu (corresponding author)

Footnotes

Hide All

Author's Note: Authors are listed alphabetically. The authors wish to thank Tim Groseclose for making available both the nominal ADA scores from 1947 to 1999 and the Matlab program files used in this analysis. SA gratefully acknowledges the support of the Hoover Institution during her time there as the 2006–07 W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow and the Robert Eckles Swain National Fellow. PH wishes to thank both the Dirksen Congressional Center and the National Science Foundation, doctoral dissertation improvement division grant 493469, for their generous support. He also wishes to acknowledge the valuable research assistance of James Lewis, Joshua Mitchell, and Matt Bergbower. Special thanks to J. Tobin Grant, Scott McClurg, and Wendy Tam Cho for their helpful feedback and assistance. All errors are the responsibility of the authors. Replication materials and programs are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Synder, James M. Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2001. “Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections”. American Journal of Political Science 55: 136–59.
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. “Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, congress and presidency”. American Journal of Political Science 51: 433–48.
Bernhard, William, and Sala, Brian R. 2006. “The remaking of the American Senate: The 17th amendment and ideological responsiveness”. Journal of Politics 68: 345–57.
Burden, Barry, Caldiera, Gregory, and Groseclose, Timothy. 2000. “Measuring the ideologies of U.S. senators: The song remains the same”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 237–58.
Butler, Daniel M., and Butler, Matthew J. 2006. “Splitting the difference: Causal inference and theories of splitparty delegations”. Political Analysis 14: 439–55.
Covington, Cary R., and Bargen, Andrew A. 2004. “Comparing floor-dominated and party-dominated explanations of policy change in the house of representatives”. Journal of Politics 66: 1069–88.
Groseclose, Timothy, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. 1999. “Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA score for the U.S. congress”. American Political Science Review 93: 3350.
Krause, George A. 2000. “Partisan and ideological sources of fiscal deficits in the United States”. American Journal of Political Science 44: 541–59.
Shaffer, William R. 1982. “Party and ideology in the U.S. house of representatives”. Western Political Quarterly 35: 92106.
Shaffer, William R. 1989. “Rating the performance of the ADA in the U.S. congress”. Western Political Quarterly 42: 3351.
MathJax
MathJax is a JavaScript display engine for mathematics. For more information see http://www.mathjax.org.

Revisiting Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress, 1947–2007

  • Sarah Anderson (a1) and Philip Habel (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed