ArticlePublic opinion quarterly2026
A Demonstration of Propensity-Score Weighting to Adjust a Social Media Nonprobability Sample Survey of Political Attitudes.
Article in Public opinion quarterly, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interest in using nonprobability online samples continues to grow despite concerns about selection bias. Many methods exist for adjusting nonprobability data so it may yield generalizable inferences. Here we investigate whether a propensity score weighting method can balance differences between a probability sample and a nonprobability sample of Twitter (now X) users to evaluate the feasibility of using social media data for producing generalizable inferences on public opinion. We fielded identical surveys to 2,001 probability-sampled respondents (June 30-July 22, 2022) and 949 Twitter users (March 1-July 13, 2022); final analytic sample sizes were 1,972 and 822, respectively. The nonprobability sample differed significantly in demographic characteristics (younger, lower income, higher educational attainment), and broadly endorsed significantly more liberal attitudes toward a range of political and policy issues than the probability sample. We show that the propensity score weighting procedure, using demographics, techno/psychographics, and political ideology, reconciles differences between the samples for 25 of the 27 attitudes assessed. The results demonstrate the feasibility and utility of the propensity score weighting procedure to replicate a probability sample with nonprobability social media data and add to the literature on the use of nonprobability samples to draw population-level inferences.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.