{
  "slug": "the-efficacy-of-measuring-judicial-ideal-points-the-mis-analogy-of-irts",
  "title": "The Efficacy of Measuring Judicial Ideal Points: The Mis-Analogy of IRTs",
  "authors": "with Mathew D. McCubbins and Kristen Renberg",
  "venue": "International Review of Law and Economics",
  "year": 2021,
  "category": "institutions",
  "section": "peerReviewed",
  "status": "published",
  "visibility": "public-pdf",
  "doi": "10.1016/j.irle.2021.106020",
  "canonical_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2021.106020",
  "summary": "Martin-Quinn-style judicial ideal points are revisited here by focusing on the item parameters that most applications ignore. A meaningful set of Supreme Court cases have discrimination parameters inconsistent with the assumptions of a unidimensional IRT model, and trimming or re-estimating around those cases yields more moderate justice scores and even changes the identity of the Court median in several terms. The broader point is that judicial ideal-point estimates are more fragile than users often assume, especially when they are treated as precise cardinal measures.",
  "metadata_url": "https://jyl19.github.io/papers/the-efficacy-of-measuring-judicial-ideal-points-the-mis-analogy-of-irts/metadata.json",
  "summary_url": "https://jyl19.github.io/papers/the-efficacy-of-measuring-judicial-ideal-points-the-mis-analogy-of-irts/summary.md",
  "pdf_url": "https://jyl19.github.io/papers/the-efficacy-of-measuring-judicial-ideal-points-the-mis-analogy-of-irts/paper.pdf"
}