A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Details and Extensions
Matthew Blackwell, James Honaker, and Gary King. 2017. “A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Details and Extensions.” Sociological Methods and Research, 46, 3, Pp. 342-369. Publisher's VersionAbstract

We extend a unified and easy-to-use approach to measurement error and missing data. In our companion article, Blackwell, Honaker, and King give an intuitive overview of the new technique, along with practical suggestions and empirical applications. Here, we offer more precise technical details, more sophisticated measurement error model specifications and estimation procedures, and analyses to assess the approach’s robustness to correlated measurement errors and to errors in categorical variables. These results support using the technique to reduce bias and increase efficiency in a wide variety of empirical research.

Advanced access version
A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications
Matthew Blackwell, James Honaker, and Gary King. 2017. “A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications.” Sociological Methods and Research, 46, 3, Pp. 303-341. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Although social scientists devote considerable effort to mitigating measurement error during data collection, they often ignore the issue during data analysis. And although many statistical methods have been proposed for reducing measurement error-induced biases, few have been widely used because of implausible assumptions, high levels of model dependence, difficult computation, or inapplicability with multiple mismeasured variables. We develop an easy-to-use alternative without these problems; it generalizes the popular multiple imputation (MI) framework by treating missing data problems as a limiting special case of extreme measurement error, and corrects for both. Like MI, the proposed framework is a simple two-step procedure, so that in the second step researchers can use whatever statistical method they would have if there had been no problem in the first place. We also offer empirical illustrations, open source software that implements all the methods described herein, and a companion paper with technical details and extensions (Blackwell, Honaker, and King, 2017b).

Method and Apparatus for Selecting Clusterings to Classify a Data Set
Gary King and Justin Grimmer. 12/13/2016. “Method and Apparatus for Selecting Clusterings to Classify a Data Set.” United States of America 9,519,705 B2 (Patent and Trademark Office).Abstract

In a computer assisted clustering method, a clustering space is generated from fixed basis partitiions that embed the entire space of all possible clusterings. A lower dimensional clustering space is created from the space of all possible clusterings by isometrically embedding the space of all possible clusterings in a lower dimensional Euclidean space. This lower dimensional space is then sampled based on the number of documents in the corpus. Partitions are then developed based on the samples that tessellate the space. Finally, using clusterings representative of these tessellations, a two-dimensional representation for users to explore is created.

Cross-Classroom and Cross-Institution Item Validation
Gary King, Brian Lukoff, and Eric Mazur. 11/29/2016. “Cross-Classroom and Cross-Institution Item Validation.” United States of America 9,508,266 (US Patent and Trademark Office).Abstract

Anonymous pretesting items for subsequent presentation to participants in a group enable an instructor to validate responses and revise the items accordingly. ... The present invention facilitates anonymous pretesting of items in classrooms (and/or other similar settings) to which the item author has no direct access or knowledge. In some enbodiments, pretesting is performed by software used by the instructor/author in his or her own classroom for other tasks. In various implementations, the software shares information with a central clearninghouse anonymously. The central clearinghouse then automatically matches students in the instructor's class with "relevant" students from other classes -- e.g., students that a statistical algorithm predicts will have approximately the same understanding, and will give approximately the same answers, as the instructor's class. ...

Systems and methods for calculating category proportions
Aykut Firat, Mitchell Brooks, Christopher Bingham, Amac Herdagdelen, and Gary King. 11/1/2016. “Systems and methods for calculating category proportions.” United States of America 9,483,544 (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office).Abstract

Systems and methods are provided for classifying text based on language using one or more computer servers and storage devices. A computer-implemented method includes receiving a training set of elements, each element in the training set being assigned to one of a plurality of categories and having one of a plurality of content profiles associated therewith; receiving a population set of elements, each element in the population set having one of the plurality of content profiles associated therewith; and calculating using at least one of a stacked regression algorithm, a bias formula algorithm, a noise elimination algorithm, and an ensemble method consisting of a plurality of algorithmic methods the results of which are averaged, based on the content profiles associated with and the categories assigned to elements in the training set and the content profiles associated with the elements of the population set, a distribution of elements of the population set over the categories.

Comment on 'Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science'
Daniel Gilbert, Gary King, Stephen Pettigrew, and Timothy Wilson. 2016. “Comment on 'Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science'.” Science, 351, 6277, Pp. 1037a-1038a. Publisher's VersionAbstract

recent article by the Open Science Collaboration (a group of 270 coauthors) gained considerable academic and public attention due to its sensational conclusion that the replicability of psychological science is surprisingly low. Science magazine lauded this article as one of the top 10 scientific breakthroughs of the year across all fields of science, reports of which appeared on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. We show that OSC's article contains three major statistical errors and, when corrected, provides no evidence of a replication crisis. Indeed, the evidence is consistent with the opposite conclusion -- that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high and, in fact, statistically indistinguishable from 100%. (Of course, that doesn't mean that the replicability is 100%, only that the evidence is insufficient to reliably estimate replicability.) The moral of the story is that meta-science must follow the rules of science.

Replication data is available in this dataverse archive. See also the full web site for this article and related materials, and one of the news articles written about it.

Article, with Supplementary Appendix Our Response to OSC's Reply Reply to post-publication discussion
The C-SPAN Archives as The Policymaking Record of American Representative Democracy: A Foreword
Gary King. 2016. “The C-SPAN Archives as The Policymaking Record of American Representative Democracy: A Foreword.” In Exploring the C-SPAN Archives: Advancing the Research Agenda, edited by Robert X Browning. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Abstract

Almost two centuries ago, the idea of research libraries, and the possibility of building them at scale, began to be realized. Although we can find these libraries at every major college and university in the world today, and at many noneducational research institutions, this outcome was by no means obvious at the time. And the benefits we all now enjoy from their existence were then at best merely vague speculations.

How many would have supported the formation of these institutions at the time, without knowing the benefits that have since become obvious? After all, the arguments against this massive ongoing expenditure are impressive. The proposal was to construct large buildings, hire staff, purchase all manner of books and other publications and catalogue and shelve them, provide access to visitors, and continually reorder all the books that the visitors disorder. And the libraries would keep the books, and fund the whole operation, in perpetuity. Publications would be collected without anyone deciding which were of high quality and thus deserving of preservation—leading critics to argue that all this effort would result in expensive buildings packed mostly with junk.  . . .

Effectiveness of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist Program in Reducing Severe Maternal, Fetal, and Newborn Harm: Study Protocol for a Matched-Pair, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Uttar Pradesh, India
Katherine Semrau, Lisa R. Hirschhorn, Bhala Kodkany, Jonathan Spector, Danielle E. Tuller, Gary King, Stuart Lisptiz, Narender Sharma, Vinay P. Singh, Bharath Kumar, Neelam Dhingra-Kumar, Rebecca Firestone, Vishwajeet Kumar, and Atul Gawande. 2016. “Effectiveness of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist Program in Reducing Severe Maternal, Fetal, and Newborn Harm: Study Protocol for a Matched-Pair, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Uttar Pradesh, India.” Trials, 576, 17, Pp. 1-10. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Background: Effective, scalable strategies to improve maternal, fetal, and newborn health and reduce preventable morbidity and mortality are urgently needed in low- and middle-income countries. Building on the successes of previous checklist-based programs, the World Health Organization (WHO) and partners led the development of the Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC), a 28-item list of evidence-based practices linked with improved maternal and newborn outcomes. Pilot-testing of the Checklist in Southern India demonstrated dramatic improvements in adherence by health workers to essential childbirth-related practices (EBPs). The BetterBirth Trial seeks to measure the effectiveness of SCC impact on EBPs, deaths, and complications at a larger scale.

Methods: This matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled, adaptive trial will be conducted in 120 facilities across 24 districts in Uttar Pradesh, India. Study sites, identified according to predefined eligibility criteria, were matched by measured covariates before randomization. The intervention, the SCC embedded in a quality improvement program, consists of leadership engagement, a 2-day educational launch of the SCC, and support through placement of a trained peer “coach” to provide supportive supervision and real-time data feedback over an 8-month period with decreasing intensity. A facility-based childbirth quality coordinator is trained and supported to drive sustained behavior change after the BetterBirth team leaves the facility. Study participants are birth attendants and women and their newborns who present to the study facilities for childbirth at 60 intervention and 60 control sites. The primary outcome is a composite measure including maternal death, maternal severe morbidity, stillbirth, and newborn death, occurring within 7 days after birth. The sample size (n = 171,964) was calculated to detect a 15% reduction in the primary outcome. Adherence by health workers to EBPs will be measured in a subset of births (n = 6000). The trial will be conducted in close collaboration with key partners including the Governments of India and Uttar Pradesh, the World Health Organization, an expert Scientific Advisory Committee, an experienced local implementing organization (Population Services International, PSI), and frontline facility leaders and workers

Discussion: If effective, the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program could be a powerful health facilitystrengthening intervention to improve quality of care and reduce preventable harm to women and newborns, with millions of potential beneficiaries.

Trial registration: BetterBirth Study Protocol dated: 13 February 2014; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02148952; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1131-5647. 

Article Supplement
Preface: Big Data is Not About the Data!
Gary King. 2016. “Preface: Big Data is Not About the Data!.” In Computational Social Science: Discovery and Prediction, edited by R. Michael Alvarez. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Abstract

A few years ago, explaining what you did for a living to Dad, Aunt Rose, or your friend from high school was pretty complicated. Answering that you develop statistical estimators, work on numerical optimization, or, even better, are working on a great new Markov Chain Monte Carlo implementation of a Bayesian model with heteroskedastic errors for automated text analysis is pretty much the definition of conversation stopper.

Then the media noticed the revolution we’re all apart of, and they glued a label to it. Now “Big Data” is what you and I do.  As trivial as this change sounds, we should be grateful for it, as the name seems to resonate with the public and so it helps convey the importance of our field to others better than we had managed to do ourselves. Yet, now that we have everyone’s attention, we need to start clarifying for others -- and ourselves -- what the revolution means. This is much of what this book is about.

Throughout, we need to remember that for the most part, Big Data is not about the data....

Scoring Social Security Proposals: Response from Kashin, King, and Soneji
Konstantin Kashin, Gary King, and Samir Soneji. 2016. “Scoring Social Security Proposals: Response from Kashin, King, and Soneji.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 2, Pp. 245-248. Publisher's VersionAbstract

This is a response to Peter Diamond's comment on a two paragraph passage in our article, Konstantin Kashin, Gary King, and Samir Soneji. 2015. “Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in US Social Security Administration Forecasts.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 29: 239-258. 

Aristides A. N. Patrinos, Hannah Bayer, Paul W. Glimcher, Steven Koonin, Miyoung Chun, and Gary King. 3/19/2015. “Urban observatories: City data can inform decision theory.” Nature, 519, Pp. 291. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Data are being collected on human behaviour in cities such as London, New York, Singapore and Shanghai, with a view to meeting city dwellers' needs more effectively. Incorporating decision-making theory into analyses of the data from these 'urban observatories' would yield further valuable information.

Automating Open Science for Big Data
Merce Crosas, James Honaker, Gary King, and Latanya Sweeney. 2015. “Automating Open Science for Big Data.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659, 1, Pp. 260-273. Publisher's VersionAbstract

The vast majority of social science research presently uses small (MB or GB scale) data sets. These fixed-scale data sets are commonly downloaded to the researcher's computer where the analysis is performed locally, and are often shared and cited with well-established technologies, such as the Dataverse Project (see Dataverse.org), to support the published results.  The trend towards Big Data -- including large scale streaming data -- is starting to transform research and has the potential to impact policy-making and our understanding of the social, economic, and political problems that affect human societies.  However, this research poses new challenges in execution, accountability, preservation, reuse, and reproducibility. Downloading these data sets to a researcher’s computer is infeasible or not practical; hence, analyses take place in the cloud, require unusual expertise, and benefit from collaborative teamwork and novel tool development. The advantage of these data sets in how informative they are also means that they are much more likely to contain highly sensitive personally identifiable information. In this paper, we discuss solutions to these new challenges so that the social sciences can realize the potential of Big Data.

Explaining Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in US Social Security Administration Forecasts
Konstantin Kashin, Gary King, and Samir Soneji. 2015. “Explaining Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in US Social Security Administration Forecasts.” Political Analysis, 23, 3, Pp. 336-362. Publisher's VersionAbstract

The accuracy of U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) demographic and financial forecasts is crucial for the solvency of its Trust Funds, other government programs, industry decision making, and the evidence base of many scholarly articles. Because SSA makes public little replication information and uses qualitative and antiquated statistical forecasting methods, fully independent alternative forecasts (and the ability to score policy proposals to change the system) are nonexistent. Yet, no systematic evaluation of SSA forecasts has ever been published by SSA or anyone else --- until a companion paper to this one (King, Kashin, and Soneji, 2015a). We show that SSA's forecasting errors were approximately unbiased until about 2000, but then began to grow quickly, with increasingly overconfident uncertainty intervals. Moreover, the errors are all in the same potentially dangerous direction, making the Social Security Trust Funds look healthier than they actually are. We extend and then attempt to explain these findings with evidence from a large number of interviews we conducted with participants at every level of the forecasting and policy processes. We show that SSA's forecasting procedures meet all the conditions the modern social-psychology and statistical literatures demonstrate make bias likely. When those conditions mixed with potent new political forces trying to change Social Security, SSA's actuaries hunkered down trying hard to insulate their forecasts from strong political pressures. Unfortunately, this otherwise laudable resistance to undue influence, along with their ad hoc qualitative forecasting models, led the actuaries to miss important changes in the input data. Retirees began living longer lives and drawing benefits longer than predicted by simple extrapolations. We also show that the solution to this problem involves SSA or Congress implementing in government two of the central projects of political science over the last quarter century: [1] promoting transparency in data and methods and [2] replacing with formal statistical models large numbers of qualitative decisions too complex for unaided humans to make optimally.

How Robust Standard Errors Expose Methodological Problems They Do Not Fix, and What to Do About It
Gary King and Margaret E Roberts. 2015. “How Robust Standard Errors Expose Methodological Problems They Do Not Fix, and What to Do About It.” Political Analysis, 23, 2, Pp. 159–179. Publisher's VersionAbstract

"Robust standard errors" are used in a vast array of scholarship to correct standard errors for model misspecification. However, when misspecification is bad enough to make classical and robust standard errors diverge, assuming that it is nevertheless not so bad as to bias everything else requires considerable optimism. And even if the optimism is warranted, settling for a misspecified model, with or without robust standard errors, will still bias estimators of all but a few quantities of interest. The resulting cavernous gap between theory and practice suggests that considerable gains in applied statistics may be possible. We seek to help researchers realize these gains via a more productive way to understand and use robust standard errors; a new general and easier-to-use "generalized information matrix test" statistic that can formally assess misspecification (based on differences between robust and classical variance estimates); and practical illustrations via simulations and real examples from published research. How robust standard errors are used needs to change, but instead of jettisoning this popular tool we show how to use it to provide effective clues about model misspecification, likely biases, and a guide to considerably more reliable, and defensible, inferences. Accompanying this article [soon!] is software that implements the methods we describe. 

Konstantin Kashin, Gary King, and Samir Soneji. 2015. “Replication Data for: Explaining Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in U.S. Social Security Administration Forecasts.”. Published on Harvard Dataverse
Konstantin Kashin, Gary King, and Samir Soneji. 2015. “Replication Data for: Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in U.S. Social Security Administration Forecasts.”. Published on Harvard Dataverse
Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in US Social Security Administration Forecasts
Konstantin Kashin, Gary King, and Samir Soneji. 2015. “Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in US Social Security Administration Forecasts.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 2, Pp. 239-258. Publisher's VersionAbstract

The financial stability of four of the five largest U.S. federal entitlement programs, strategic decision making in several industries, and many academic publications all depend on the accuracy of demographic and financial forecasts made by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Although the SSA has performed these forecasts since 1942, no systematic and comprehensive evaluation of their accuracy has ever been published by SSA or anyone else. The absence of a systematic evaluation of forecasts is a concern because the SSA relies on informal procedures that are potentially subject to inadvertent biases and does not share with the public, the scientific community, or other parts of SSA sufficient data or information necessary to replicate or improve its forecasts. These issues result in SSA holding a monopoly position in policy debates as the sole supplier of fully independent forecasts and evaluations of proposals to change Social Security. To assist with the forecasting evaluation problem, we collect all SSA forecasts for years that have passed and discover error patterns that could have been---and could now be---used to improve future forecasts. Specifically, we find that after 2000, SSA forecasting errors grew considerably larger and most of these errors made the Social Security Trust Funds look more financially secure than they actually were. In addition, SSA's reported uncertainty intervals are overconfident and increasingly so after 2000. We discuss the implications of these systematic forecasting biases for public policy.

The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis
David Lazer, Ryan Kennedy, Gary King, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2014. “The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis.” Science, 343, 14 March, Pp. 1203-1205.Abstract
Large errors in flu prediction were largely avoidable, which offers lessons for the use of big data.

In February 2013, Google Flu Trends (GFT) made headlines but not for a reason that Google executives or the creators of the flu tracking system would have hoped. Nature reported that GFT was predicting more than double the proportion of doctor visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which bases its estimates on surveillance reports from laboratories across the United States ( 1, 2). This happened despite the fact that GFT was built to predict CDC reports. Given that GFT is often held up as an exemplary use of big data ( 3, 4), what lessons can we draw from this error?

Participant Grouping for Enhanced Interactive Experience
Gary King, Brian Lukoff, and Eric Mazur. 2014. “Participant Grouping for Enhanced Interactive Experience.” United States of America US 8,914,373 B2 (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office).Abstract

Representative embodiments of a method for grouping participants in an activity include the steps of: (i) defining a grouping policy; (ii) storing, in a database, participant records that include a participant identifer, a characteristic associated With the participant, and/or an identifier for a participant’s handheld device; (iii) defining groupings based on the policy and characteristics of the participants relating to the policy and to the activity; and (iv) communicating the groupings to the handheld devices to establish the groups.

You Lie! Patterns of Partisan Taunting in the U.S. Senate (Poster)
Justin Grimmer, Gary King, and Chiara Superti. 2014. “You Lie! Patterns of Partisan Taunting in the U.S. Senate (Poster).” In Society for Political Methodology. Athens, GA.Abstract

This is a poster that describes our analysis of "partisan taunting," the explicit, public, and negative attacks on another political party or its members, usually using vitriolic and derogatory language. We first demonstrate that most projects that hand code text in the social sciences optimize with respect to the wrong criterion, resulting in large, unnecessary biases. We show how to fix this problem and then apply it to taunting. We find empirically that, unlike most claims in the press and the literature, taunting is not inexorably increasing; it appears instead to be a rational political strategy, most often used by those least likely to win by traditional means -- ideological extremists, out-party members when the president is unpopular, and minority party members. However, although taunting appears to be individually rational, it is collectively irrational: Constituents may resonate with one cutting taunt by their Senator, but they might not approve if he or she were devoting large amounts of time to this behavior rather than say trying to solve important national problems. We hope to partially rectify this situation by posting public rankings of Senatorial taunting behavior.