01397pab a2200145 454500008004000000100002300040245004500063260000900108300001200117362000800129520104600137650001501183700001901198773003401217180718b2000   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aBollen, Kenneth A.  aSubjective measures of liberal democracy  c2000  ap.58-86  aFeb  aUsing democracy in empirical work requires accurate measurement. Yet, most policy and academic research presupposes the accuracy of available measures. This article explores judge-specific measurement errors in cros-national indicators of liberal democracy. The authors evaluate the magnitude of these errors in widely used measures of democracy and determine whether their results replicate during a 17-year period (1972 to 1988). Then, they examine the nature of these systematic errors, hypothesizing that three different processes - (a) the information available for rating, (b) the judges' processing of this information, and (c) the method by which a judge's processing decisions are translated into a rating - could create error. The authors find that for the 17-year period from 1972 to 1988, there is unambiguous evidence of judge-specific measurement errors, which are related to traits of the countries. In the conclusion, the authors discuss the implications for democracy research and for other subjective measures. - Reproduced  aLiberalism  aPaxton, Pamela  aComparative Political Studies