2014
DOI: 10.1111/jssr.12115
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Church Attendance, Problems of Measurement, and Interpreting Indicators: A Study of Religious Practice in the United States, 1975–2010

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Italy 6 and Ireland also demonstrated statistically, but not substantively, significant rates of overreporting, as the effect sizes were negligible. Subsequent work using a more complex method for computing overreporting has supported the existence of an overreport in Italy (Rossi and Scappini 2012) and the United States (Rossi and Scappini 2014). Finally, little research exists testing the validity of self-reported religious behavior outside Europe and North America.…”
Section: Measurement Error Overreportingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Italy 6 and Ireland also demonstrated statistically, but not substantively, significant rates of overreporting, as the effect sizes were negligible. Subsequent work using a more complex method for computing overreporting has supported the existence of an overreport in Italy (Rossi and Scappini 2012) and the United States (Rossi and Scappini 2014). Finally, little research exists testing the validity of self-reported religious behavior outside Europe and North America.…”
Section: Measurement Error Overreportingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We can now extend the study to the entire matrix by calculating the ratio P = j = 1 W i = 1 N / W x i , j / N , thereby showing the proportion between positive and possible events. We use the term measured presence to refer to the index P (Rossi and Scappini 2014). This idea is not new.…”
Section: Preliminary Features: Data and Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In conclusion, the TUSs are limited because of the “poverty” of the density indicator and an overestimate calculated at between 2 and 2.5 percent due to the self‐selection of the sample and the overcounting of those who attend Mass on both days. However, we believe that the level of error present in these diary‐based surveys is within acceptable limits and that they are more precise and therefore preferable to surveys that use the stylized questionnaire (Brennan and London ; Chaves , Hadaway, Marler, and Chaves ; Presser and Stinson ; Rossi and Scappini )…”
Section: The Data: Census and Tusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The period of administration of the diary for the TUS 2003 was from October 2002 to September 2003, with a response rate of 63 percent, while the TUS 2010 was conducted from October 2009 to September 2010, with a response rate of 51 percent. These levels of response rate give an overestimate of about 1.2 percentage points in the measure of church attendance (see also Rossi and Scappini :260).…”
Section: The Data: Census and Tusmentioning
confidence: 99%