Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T03:38:54.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Case for Registering Studies of Political Outcomes: An Application in the 2010 House Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

James E. Monogan III*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 e-mail: monogan@uga.edu

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium on Research Registration
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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.)

References

Abramowitz, A. I. 2004. Voice of the people: Elections and voting in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, A. I., and Segal, J. A. 1992. Senate elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archibold, R. C. 2010. Arizona enacts stringent law on immigration. New York Times, 23 April 2010. 8 August 2010, nytimes.com.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. 1997. Specification uncertainty and model averaging. American Journal of Political Science 41: 641–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. E., ed. 2008. Symposium: Forecasting the 2008 national elections. PS: Political Science & Politics 41: 679764.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. E. 2010. Symposium: Forecasts of the 2010 midterm elections. PS: Political Science & Politics 43: 625–48.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. 1996. Right-wing politics and the anti-immigration cause. Social Justice 23: 154–68.Google Scholar
Flay, B. R., Miller, T. Q., Hedeker, D., Siddiqui, O., Britton, C. F., Brannon, B. R., Johnson, C. A., Hansen, W. B., Sussman, S., and Dent, C. 1995. The television, school and family smoking prevention and cessation project: VIII. Student outcomes and mediating variables. Preventive Medicine 24: 2940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, A. S., and Malhotra, N. 2008. Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3: 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Malhotra, N., Dowling, C. M., and Doherty, D. 2010. Publication bias in two political behavior literatures. American Politics Research 38: 591613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, J. 1999. The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing. Political Research Quarterly 52: 647–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., and Stuart, E. A. 2007. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis 15: 199236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, D. J. 2010. Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review 104: 4060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., and Sprague, J. T. 1995. Citizens, politics, and social communication: Influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J. T., and Levine, J. 2000. The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review 94: 641–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, K., and van Dyk, D. A. 2004. Causal inference with general treatment regimes: Generalizing the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99: 854–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1949. Southern politics in state and nation. New York: A. Knopf.Google Scholar
King, G. 1995. Replication, replication. PS: Political Science and Politics 28: 443–99.Google Scholar
King, G. 2007. An introduction to the Dataverse Network as an infrastructure for data sharing. Sociological Methods and Research 32: 173–99.Google Scholar
King, G., Gakidou, E., Imai, K., Lakin, J., Moore, R. T., Nall, C., Ravishankar, N., Vargas, M., Téllez-Rojo, M. M., Ávila, J. E. H., Ávila, M. H., and Llamas, H. H. 2009. Public policy for the poor? A randomized assessment of the Mexican universal health insurance programme. Lancet 373: 1447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Gakidou, E., Ravishankar, N., Moore, R. T., Lakin, J., Vargas, M., Téllez-Rojo, M. M., Ávila, J. E. H., Ávila, M. H., and Llamas, H. H. 2007. A “politically robust” experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican universal health insurance program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26: 479506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopacz, M. A. 2008. Framing immigration online: Online position statements of 2006 candidates for Congress. Electronic Journal of Communication 18(1).Google Scholar
LaLonde, R. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review 76: 604–20.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., and Brau, S. 1995. The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 89: 309–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A., and McCubbins, M. D. 1998. The Democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, A. D., and Quinn, K. M. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10: 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, J. M., and Nyhan, B. 2010. Bayesian model averaging: Theoretical developments and practical applications. Political Analysis 18: 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Science Foundation. 2011. Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide: Part II—Award and Administration Guide. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Nie, N. H., Junn, J., and Stehlik-Barry, K. 1996. Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rennie, D. 2004. Trial registration: A great idea switches from ignored to irresistible. Journal of the American Medical Association 292: 1359–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, P. R., and Rubin, D. B. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 4155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. 2001. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology 2: 169–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. 2006. Matched sampling for causal effects. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simes, R. J. 1986. Publication bias: The case for an international registry of clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 4: 1529–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterling, T. D. 1959. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association 54: 30–4.Google Scholar
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., and Brady, H. E. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar