Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36999096›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2023

Protecting the integrity of survey research.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Arthur Lupia, Ashley Amaya, Henry E Brady, René Bautista, Joshua D Clinton, Jill A Dever, David Dutwin, Daniel L Goroff, D Sunshine Hillygus and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A solution to the pervasive problem of response bias in self-reports.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. The political fallout of air pollution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  7. Publishing survey research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Kathleen Hall JamiesonAnnenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4167-3688
Arthur LupiaDepartment of Political Science, University of Michigan, 505 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3220-1125
Ashley AmayaPew Research Center, 1615 L Street NW #800, Washington, DC 20036, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9362-5469
Henry E BradyGoldman School of Public Policy, University of California, 2607 Hearst Ave, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5375-6931
René BautistaMethodology and Quantitative Social Science Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8816-1658
Joshua D ClintonDepartment of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1683-9479
Jill A DeverDivision for Statistical and Data Sciences, RTI International, Washington, DC 20005-3967, USA.
David DutwinCenter for Panel Survey Sciences, NORC at the University of Chicago, 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60618, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4819-1064
Daniel L GoroffAlfred P. Sloan Foundation, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10111, USA.
D Sunshine HillygusDepartment of Political Science, Duke University, 140 Science Dr, Durham, NC 27707, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9057-3344
Courtney KennedyPew Research Center, 1615 L Street NW #800, Washington, DC 20036, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7833-0320
Gary LangerLanger Research Associates, Carmel, NY 10512, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8829-9526
John S LapinskiDepartment of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, 133 South 36th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Michael LinkIpsos, Canton, GA 30115, USA.
Tasha PhilpotDepartment of Government, University of Texas at Austin, 158 W 21st Street, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Ken PrewittDepartment of Political Science, Columbia University, New York City, NY 10012, USA.
Doug RiversDepartment of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Lynn VavreckDepartment of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4582-7960
David C WilsonGoldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2347-739X
Marcia K McNuttNational Academy of Sciences, 500 5th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0117-7716

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although polling is not irredeemably broken, changes in technology and society create challenges that, if not addressed well, can threaten the quality of election polls and other important surveys on topics such as the economy. This essay describes some of these challenges and recommends remediations to protect the integrity of all kinds of survey research, including election polls. These 12 recommendations specify ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses. Many of these recommendations align practice with the scientific norms of transparency, clarity, and self-correction. The transparency recommendations focus on improving disclosure of factors that affect the nature and quality of survey data. The clarity recommendations call for more precise use of terms such as "representative sample" and clear description of survey attributes that can affect accuracy. The recommendation about correcting the record urges the creation of a publicly available, professionally curated archive of identified technical problems and their remedies. The paper also calls for development of better benchmarks and for additional research on the effects of panel conditioning. Finally, the authors suggest ways to help people who want to use or learn from survey research understand the strengths and limitations of surveys and distinguish legitimate and problematic uses of these methods.

Indexed as

scientific integritysurvey researchweighting of data

Identifiers

PMID36999096
PMCPMC10047603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.