English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 88295/117812 (75%)
Visitors : 23405683      Online Users : 177
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99630


    Title: 論開放題與選擇題測量政治知識的適用性
    The Applicability of the Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Format for the Measurement of Political Knowledge
    Authors: 潘心儀
    Pan, Sin Yi
    Contributors: 蔡宗漢
    Tsai, Tsung han
    潘心儀
    Pan, Sin Yi
    Keywords: 政治知識
    開放題
    選擇題
    前測後測
    猜題
    Political Knowledge
    Open-Ended Question
    Multiple-Choice Question
    Pretest-Posttest Design
    Guess
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-08-03 10:24:10 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 政治知識之於民主社會有其重要性,在政治學界中與政治知識相關的研究產出相當豐富,研究者利用政治知識此一變數進行相關研究前,對於題目如何選定、選項如何提供、題型的差異都是研究者需要去關注的重點,而本文主要的研究目的即是聚焦於討論何種題型更適合用來測量民眾的政治知識。
    目前國內測量政治知識的問卷題型較為常見的為開放題與選擇題題型,在這兩類題型的討論上,前者被認為會低估受訪者政治知識程度,後者的測量結果則被質疑提供猜題空間導致高估了受訪者的政治知識程度,然而目前國內外卻缺乏足夠的實證研究來證明這兩個題型的適用性。
    本文採用具有實驗設計性質的二手資料,利用前後測的方式讓受測者填答相同題目不同題型的問卷,藉此檢視各種知識程度的受測者在面對不同題型時是否會產生回應模式上的差異。本研究發現,開放題會使得較高政治知識程度的受訪者被低估,選擇題反而能準確測量出此類受訪者的知識程度。為了進一步證實受訪者在偏難的題目上所增加的猜題比例並非是來自於盲猜,本文採用多項機率單元模型來檢視受訪者於於選擇題選擇各個答項的機率。研究發現,儘管選擇題無法避免受訪者猜題,但受訪者並非是盲猜,反而會根據其具有的知識依據來答題,故政治知識程度高的受訪者能採用猜題方式答對題目,政治知識低的受訪者無法利用猜題方式猜中答案。整體而言,選擇題比起開放題更適合用來測量民眾的政治知識。
    Political knowledge plays an important role in the democratic society, and therefore there has been much research on political knowledge in the discipline of political science. To study political knowledge, political scientists have to understand the way of questions and options presented, and also the differences between a variety of question formats. This paper aims to analyze which question format is better for measuring the political knowledge of the public.
    The open-ended and multiple-choice items are both common formats for measuring political knowledge in Taiwan. The open-ended question is always considered to underestimate the respondents’ level of political knowledge, while the multiple-choice format is thought of overestimating the levels of political knowledge for providing the respondents with opportunity to guess. However, a strong evidence to decide the most suitable format for the measurement of political knowledge is still lacking.
    This paper uses the secondary data which is collected by a pretest-posttest questionnaire to examine whether guessing behavior will emerge or not when the respondents facing the same question with different formats. This research finds that open-ended questions underestimate the respondents’ knowledge levels who has higher level of political knowledge originally, but the multiple-choice questions can estimate the levels more accurately. To further confirm that the higher guess proportions in the more difficult questions are not resulted from the blind guessing, the study examines the probabilities of options selected by Multinomial Probit Model. The research finds that though the respondents may have guess more in multiple-choice question, however, they tend to answer the questions based on their knowledge instead of blind guessing. Therefore, the respondents who have higher levels of political knowledge can guess correctly, while those who have lower levels of political knowledge cannot. In summary, the multiple-choice questions are more suitable to measure people’s political knowledge.
    Reference: I.中文部分
    中華民國統計資訊網,〈就業、失業統計〉。上網日期:2015年12月17日,檢 自:http://www.stat.gov.tw/point.asp?index=3
    行政院全球資訊網,〈歷任政府首長〉:上網日期:2015年12月17日,檢自:http://www.ey.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=338EAE7851985E1C
    呂亞力,1988。《政治學》,台北:三民書局出版公司。
    杜素豪、廖培珊,2006。〈「不知道」回答、猜題效應與知識分數:以基因科學知識量表為例〉,《調查研究》,19: 67-99。
    林瓊珠,2005。〈台灣民眾的政治知識:1992~2000 年的變動〉。《選舉研究》,12(1): 147-171。
    林聰吉、王淑華,2007。〈台灣民眾政治知識的變遷與來源〉。《東吳政治學報》,25(3): 93-132。
    莊文忠、林美榕, 2014。〈指數或量表?以TEDS的政治知識測量為例〉。《選舉研究》, 21(2) : 113-145。
    黃秀端,1996。〈政治知識之認知與性別差異〉。《東吳政治學報》,5: 27-50。
    黃秀端、徐永明、林瓊珠,2014。〈政治知識的測量〉。《選舉研究》,21(1): 89-126。
    傅恆德,2005。〈政治知識、政治評價與投票選擇:第五屆立法委員選舉研究〉。《選舉研究》,12(1): 39-68。
    游清鑫,2012。〈初體驗與粗體驗:台灣民眾對立委新選制的認知、參與及評價〉。《選舉研究》,19(1): 1-32。

    II.英文部分
    Bennett, Stephen E. 1994. “Changing Levels of Political Information in 1988 and 1990. ’’ Political Behavior 16(1): 1-20.
    Bennett, Stephen E. 1995. “Comparing Americans’ Political Information in 1988 and 1992.” Journal of Politics 57(2): 521-532.
    Bridgeman, B. (1992). “A Comparison of Quantitative Question in Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Formats.” Journal of Educational Mesurement 29(3): 253-271.
    Cannell, C., P. Miller, and L. Oksenberg. 1981. “Research on Interviewing Techniques” Sociological Methodology 12: 387-447.
    Dawns, Anthony 1957 “An Economy Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65(2): 135-150.
    Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1991. “Stability and Change in the U.S. Public’s Knowledge of Politics.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 55(4): 583-612.
    Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1993. “Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First.” American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 1179-1206.
    Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
    Galston, W. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” Annual Review of Political Science 4: 217-234.
    Frazer, Elizabeth, and Kenneth Macdonald. 2003. “Sex Differences in Political Knowledge in Britain.” Political Studies 51: 67-83.
    Gronlund, Kimmo, and Henry Millner. 2006. “The Determinants of Political Knowledge in Comparative Perspective.” Scandinavian Political Studies 29(4): 386-406.
    Gronlund, Kimmo. 2007. “Knowing and Not Knowing: The Internet and Political Information.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30(3): 397-418.
    Jennings, M. Kent. 1996. “Political Knowledge over Time and across Generation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60(2): 228-252.
    Jerit, J., J. Barabas, and T. Bolsen. 2006. “Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 266-282.
    Lambert, Donald D., James E. Cuttis, Barry J. Kay, and Steven D. Brown. 1988. “The Social Source of Political Knowledge.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 29(2): 359-374.
    Lassen, David D. 2005. “The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 49(1): 103-118.
    Luskin, Robert C. 1990. “Explaining Political Sophistication.” Political Behavior 12: 331-361.
    Luskin, Robert C., and John G. Bullock. 2011. “‘Don’t Know’ Means ‘Don’t Know’: DK Responses and the Public’s Level of Political Knowledge.” Journal of Politics 73: 547-557.
    Miller, Melissa K. and Shannon K. Orr. 2008. “Experimental with A ‘Third Way’ in Political Knowledge Estimation” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(4): 768-780.
    Mondak, Jeffery J. 1995. “Newspaper and Political Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science 39(2): 513-527.
    Mondak, Jeffery J. 1999. “Reconsidering the measurement of political knowledge” Political Analysis 8(1): 57-82.
    Mondak, Jeffery J. 2001. “Developing Valid Knowledge Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 224-238.
    Mondak, Jeffery J., and Belinda C. Davis. 2001. “Asked and Answered: Knowledge Levels When We Will Not Take ‘Don’t Know’ for an Answer.” Political Behavior 23: 199-224.
    Mondak, Jeffery, and Damarys, Canache. 2004. “Knowledge Variables in Cross-National Social Inquiry.” Social Science Quarterly 85(3): 539-588.
    Mondak, Jeffery J., and Mary R. Anderson. 2004. “The Knowledge Gap: A Re-Examination of Gender-Based Difference in Political Knowledge.” Journal of Politics 66: 492-512.
    Neuman, W . Russell, Marion R . Just, and Ann N . Crigler. 1992. Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Price, Vincent, and John Zaller. 1993. “Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57: 133-164.
    Prior, Markus. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 594-609.
    Prior, Markus and Arthur Lupia. 2008. “Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills.” American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 169-183.
    Robinson, John P., and Dennis K. Davis. 1990. “Television News and the Informed Public: An Information-Processing Approach.” Journal of Communication 40(3): 106-119.
    Sartori G. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited - Part One: The Contemporary Debate. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
    Sullivan, John L., James Piereson, and George E. Marcus 1979 “An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance Illusory Increases 1950s-1970s.” American Political Sciences Review 73: 781-794.
    Weaver, David, and Dan Drew. 1993. “Voter Learning in the 1990 Off-Year Election: Did the Media Matter?” Journalism Quarterly 70: 356-368.
    Weaver, David, and Dan Drew. 2006. “Voter learning and interest in the 2004 Presidential election: Did the media matter?” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 83(1): 25-42.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    政治學系
    102252014
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102252014
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    201401.pdf1482KbAdobe PDF337View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback