Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark

  • Will Lowe (a1) and Kenneth Benoit (a2)
Abstract

Automated and statistical methods for estimating latent political traits and classes from textual data hold great promise, because virtually every political act involves the production of text. Statistical models of natural language features, however, are heavily laden with unrealistic assumptions about the process that generates these data, including the stochastic process of text generation, the functional link between political variables and observed text, and the nature of the variables (and dimensions) on which observed text should be conditioned. While acknowledging statistical models of latent traits to be “wrong,” political scientists nonetheless treat their results as sufficiently valid to be useful. In this article, we address the issue of substantive validity in the face of potential model failure, in the context of unsupervised scaling methods of latent traits. We critically examine one popular parametric measurement model of latent traits for text and then compare its results to systematic human judgments of the texts as a benchmark for validity.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
e-mail: kbenoit@lse.ac.uk (corresponding author)
Footnotes
Hide All

Authors' note: Replication materials for this article are available from the Political Analysis dataverse at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/20387. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Benoit, K., and Laver, M. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
Benoit, K., and Laver, M. 2012. The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics 13: 194218.
Benoit, K., Laver, M., and Mikhaylov, S. 2009. Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 495513.
Cameron, A. C., and Trivedi, P. K. 1998. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carlstein, E. 1986. The use of subseries methods for estimating the variance of a general statistic from a stationary time series. Annals of Statistics 14: 1171–79.
Church, K., and Gale, W. 1995. Poisson mixtures. Natural Language Engineering 1: 163–90.
Davison, A. C., and Hinkley, D. V. 1997. Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Firth, D. 2005. Bradley-Terry models in R. Journal of Statistical Software 12: 112.
Goodman, L. A. 1979. Simple models for the analysis of association in cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74(367): 537–52.
Greenacre, M. 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice, 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall.
Grimmer, J., and King, G. 2011. General purpose computer-assisted clustering and conceptualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(7): 2643–50.
Grimmer, J., and Stewart, B. M. 2013. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis 21(3): 267–97.
Jordan, M. I. 1995. Why the logistic function? A tutorial discussion on probabilities and neural networks. Computational Cognitive Science Report 9503, MIT.
Künsch, H. R. 1989. The jackknife and the bootstrap for general stationary observations. Annals of Statistics 17: 1217–41.
Laver, M., Benoit, K., and Garry, J. 2003. Estimating the policy positions of political actors using words as data. American Political Science Review 97: 311–31.
Lo, J., Proksch, S.-O., and Slapin, J. B. 2011. Party ideology and intra-party cohesion: A theory and measure of election manifestos. Paper presented at MPSA 2011.
Lowe, W., and Benoit, K. R. 2011. Practical issues in text scaling models: Estimating legislator ideal points in multi-party systems using speeches. Paper presented at MPSA 2011.
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., and Schütze, H. 2008. Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mikhaylov, S., Laver, M., and Benoit, K. 2012. Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Analysis 20: 7891.
Monroe, B., and Maeda, K. 2004. Talk's cheap: Text-based estimation of rhetorical ideal-points. Working paper, Michigan State University.
Monroe, B. L., Quinn, K. M., and Colaresi, M. P. 2008. Fightin' words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis 16: 372403.
Proksch, S.-O., and Slapin, J. B. 2010. Position taking in the European Parliament speeches. British Journal of Political Science 40(3): 587611.
Slapin, J. B., and Proksch, S.-O. 2008. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 705–22.
Wallach, H. M., Murray, I., Salakhutdinov, R., and Mimno, D. 2009. Evaluation methods for topic models. Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Machine Learning, New York, NY.
Zhang, H. 2004. The optimality of Naïve Bayes. In FLAIRS Conference, eds. Barr, V. and Markov, Z. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Lowe and Benoit supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (316 KB)
316 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 200 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 609 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th January 2017 - 23rd September 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.