The Shor–McCarty state ideology data provide a valuable resource for students of state legislative politics, but, as with any important new measures, the properties of those data warrant independent examination. Toward that end, we report results from three validation tests, two tests of convergent validity and one test of construct validity, with all tests focused on Shor and McCarty’s legislator, or individual-level, data. Collectively, results of the validation exercises offer strong evidence the Shor–McCarty measures provide valid representations of state legislator ideology.
BerryW. D.RingquistE. J.FordingR. C.HansonR. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 327–348.
2.
BishinB. G. (2003). Independently validating ideology measures: A look at NOMINATE and adjusted ADA scores. American Politics Research, 31, 404–425.
3.
BonicaA. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 367–386.
4.
ClintonJ. D.KatznelsonI.LapinskiJ. S. (2016). Where measures meet history: Party polarization in the new deal and fair deal. In GerberA. S.ShicklerE. (Eds.), Governing in a polarized age (pp. 191–219). Cambridge University Press.
5.
ClintonJ. D.LapinskiJ. S. (2008). Laws and roll calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891-1994. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33, 511–541.
6.
DietrichB. J.LasleyS.MondakJ. J.RemmelM. L.TurnerJ. (2012). Personality and legislative politics: The Big Five trait dimensions among U.S. state legislators. Political Psychology, 33, 195–210.
7.
EysenckH. J.WilsonG. D. (Eds.). (1978). The psychological basis of ideology. University Park Press.
8.
FunkC. L.SmithK. B.AlfordJ. R.HibbingM. V.EatonN. R.KruegerR. F.EavesL. J.HibbingJ. R. (2013). Genetic and environmental transmission of political orientations. Political Psychology, 34, 805–819.
9.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M.HaS. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133.
10.
JacobsN. W.BerduszekR. J.DijkstraP. U.van der SluisC. K. (2017). Validity and reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27, 520–529.
11.
LeeF. E. (2008). Agreeing to disagree: Agenda content and senate partisanship, 1981–2004. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33, 199–222.
12.
McCartyN. (2016). In defense of DW-nominate. Studies in American Political Development, 30, 172–184.
13.
McCraeR. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.
14.
MondakJ. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press.
15.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2011). Ideology and congress. Transaction Publishers.
16.
RameyA. J.KlinglerJ. D.HollibaughG. E.Jr. (2017). More than a feeling: Personality, polarization, and the transformation of the U.S. congress. University of Chicago Press.
17.
ShorB. (2018). Individual state legislator Shor-McCarty ideology data, May 2018 update (Harvard Dataverse, V2). https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6QWX7Q
18.
ShorB.BerryC.McCartyN. (2010). A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35, 417–448.
19.
ShorB.McCartyN. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105, 530–551.
20.
SquireP. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7, 211–227.
21.
WilsonG. D.PattersonJ. R. (1968). A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 264–269.
