Field Methods

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1525822X08316644v1
20/2/171    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, T. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
This version was published on May 1, 2008
Field Methods, Vol. 20, No. 2, 171-178 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08316644

An Experimental Comparison of Methods of Measuring Ethnicity

Tom W. Smith

National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, smitht{at}norc.uchicago.edu

Ethnicity is a labile construct in the United States, and the combination of complex backgrounds and low saliency contributes to variability in reporting. This is demonstrated in an experiment of the 2004 General Social Survey in which a computer-assisted personal interview—based version of a traditional paper-and-pencil interview—based item on ethnicity produced many more mentions of ethnicities.

Key Words: ethnicity • surveys • reliability • measurement error


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?