Using Total Margin of Error to Account for Non-Sampling Error in Election Polls
用总误差幅度纳入选举民调的非抽样误差AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究民调调查误差及无回应偏好的不确定性,未明确涉及处理效应、计量面板模型或其他所列细分。
反馈分类问题用总误差幅度纳入选举民调的非抽样误差AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The potential impact of non-sampling errors on election polls is well known, but measurement has focused on the margin of sampling error. Statisticians have recommended measurement of total survey error by mean square error (MSE), which jointly measures sampling and non-sampling errors. We suggest use of the square root of maximum MSE to measure the total margin of error (TME). We suggest that measurement of TME should be a standard feature in the reporting of polls. Because the exceedingly low response rates commonly obtained by polls is a particularly worrisome source of potential error, we demonstrate how to measure the potential impact of nonresponse by sampled persons using the concept of TME. We show how to measure TME when a pollster lacks any knowledge of the candidate preferences of nonrespondents. We extend the analysis to settings where the pollster has partial knowledge that bounds the preferences of non-respondents. In each setting, we derive a simple poll estimate that approximately minimizes TME—a midpoint estimate—and compare it to a conventional poll estimate. We extend our analysis of nonresponse by sampled persons to address polls with under-coverage of the population and opt-in panels of participants.