When you have an option that is confusing respondents, there's a solution! Delete it! Force them to choose between the empirically meaningful options.
Also, the actual best way to survey religion is to ask people, "Think about the place you most often worship. What is its name?" and then to do a follow up, "Do you happen to know what religion this place of worship is associated with?" then give religion options.
Then once you've ID'd a religion, ask, "Do you happen to know what denomination this place of worship is associated with?" then give major denominational families.
The problem is we usually do this in a weird order.
We ask people "What is your religious preference?" or something absurd like that, and we give like "major families" of religions and it's kind of a survey of religion and kind of a vocabulary test.
When what we should do is ask people an extremely verifiable fact they probably know: what is the name of the place you usually attend religious services? If they don't know it, you can try to classify based on follow-ups, but odds are they're de facto nonreligious anyways.
What's nice about "What's the name of the place you usually go for religious services?" is that it directly queries the actual social fact we are interested in and then gives the researcher really nice, granular microdata to recode as they see fit. With follow-ups, even moreso.
The reasons we don't do this kind of question format in most surveys are: 1) inertia. Survey-taking involves a huge amount of question- and concept-borrowing. 2) Data processing burden. You have to recode and classify tons of custom responses. 3) Privacy. People may not want...
... to give the name of their congregation.
Now, high-quality surveys like GSS actually already do something kinda like this for their congregation follow-up survey. But even they start with religious preference and work down.
For my surveys, I don't ask about specific religious ID because my research is strongly focused on other fertility-related questions and I don't want to squander my "respondent trust budget." And that concern impacts a whole lot of surveys!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To start with, this is not my first foray into Mongolia commentary. It's an amazing country I've tweeted about a lot because I'm lowkey obsessed with it. It's basically the Kentucky of Asia.
You can read some of my takes on the plight of Mongols in China here as well. The cultural commonality and difference between ethnic-Mongols in China and Mongolians is a fascinating divide without clear parallel anywhere in the world!
This study of long COVID in Norway has a nice design: PCR tests, long follow-up, large sample, and a plausible mechanism for identifying cases: a huge pre-existing panel survey using frequent mobile-device questionnaires. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
My only real critique is that while they do have about 80,000 people in the sample, it's Norway, so they only managed to find about 800 COVID cases. lol. problems of low attack rate!
But, among those 800, they found that no single symptom of "long COVID" occurred among more than 22% of infected people. The most common symptoms among COVID+ people were loss of taste/smell and fatigue. Loss of taste was NOT correlated with other cognitive symptoms.
Statistics Canada is doing a pilot study of a mobile-device-based wellbeing-survey and they're recruiting respondents through the Very Scientific method of.... emailing everyone who's ever emailed their technical support desk.
Extremely strong selection there for "disgruntled data analysts" so that's gonna be a WILD pilot study.
I have of course signed up and downloaded the app and am PSYCHED to be a respondent in another survey.
I'm a longitudinal panelist in two surveys, I've gotten ACS AND CPS (!!), and I'm a standing panelist in multiple "big survey company" databases, and because I very reliably take the surveys, my personal traits are wildly overrepresented in studies of Americans.
There has been progress on racial justice, yes: but most of the progress occurred while religiosity was still very high and fairly stable. As religiosity has declined, progress on racial justice has clearly faltered, and we're now in a place were it's not even clear...
What anybody means by a phrase like "progress on racial justice." Without a shared pre-political moral landscape, statements like that are meaningless, and so unsurprisingly political discourse around them becomes irresolvable.
Quebec COVID update: Back when I projected this wave would just never generate the deaths and hospitalizations the government worried about, I made 3 scenarios for ICU cases. One assumed Case-->ICU ratios returned to historic wave ratios. One assumed they flatlined. One fell.
For January 8, the latest data, my low forecast suggested there would be 208 ICU cases. My mid forecast suggested 333 ICU cases. And the high forecast, the one the government is basically treating as "what is going to happen," was 795.
In reality, on January 8, there were 257 ICU cases: between my low and mid scenarios. So it continues to be the case that Quebec's wave is generating far fewer ICU cases per official positive case than prior waves.
What is the best empirical evidence that therapy actually improves mental health?
I am struggling to find anything credible.
This meta-analysis of 147 studies seems to suggest p-hacking is very common, publication bias is huge, and even with that the typical effect of therapy vs. care-as-usual is clinically insignificant. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21770842/
This more recent one specifically on CBT for adult depression suggests that CBT has been wildly overrated by creative research practices. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…