Southern Political Science Association

A New Model for Old Measures: A Covariance Structure Analysis of Political Efficacy Author(s): Alan Acock, Harold D. Clarke, Marianne C. Stewart Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Nov., 1985), pp. 1062-1084 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2130807 . Accessed: 10/03/2012 05:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Southern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

A New Model for Old Measures: A Covariance StructureAnalysis of Political Efficacy

Alan Acock
LouisianaState University

Harold D. Clarke
VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteand State University

MarianneC. Stewart
VirginiaPolytechnic Instituteand State University
Politicalefficacy is a key concept in theories of political participationand democratic analytictechniquesto assessthe adequacy governance.This paperuses covariancestructure of traditionalSRC indicatorsfor measuringpoliticalefficacy in the United Statesand other liberaldemocracies.Analysesindicatethata two-factormodel of a subsetof theseindicators to fits data for the U.S. and six other countriesvery well, with item loadingscorresponding prevailingconceptualdistinctionsbetween internaland externalefficacy. In the American case the structureof the model is invariantby race, gender and political context, and the relative strength of correlationsbetween the efficacy factors and measuresof personal expectations. agreeswith theoretical competence and perceived governmentresponsiveness Althoughthe SRC items appearto be useful measuresof efficacy, simple equallyweighted additive indices such as those utilized by the SRC itself are inadequate.Moresophisticated measurement models are required. "To some people politics is a distant and complex realm that is beyond the power of the commoncitizento affect, whereasto othersthe affairsof governmentcanbe understoodand influencedby individualcitizens." A. Campbellet al., The AmericanVoter

Political efficacy is a central concept in contemporary theories of political participationand democratic politics (see Almond and Verba, 1963, 1980; Pateman, 1970; Macpherson, 1977). Consonant with its theoreticalstatus,investigationsof the extent, causes and consequencesof political efficacy among mass publics occupy a prominent place on the political science researchagenda in the United States and elsewhere.' To
1 The relevant literature is voluminous. Among the better known, early works using the concept are Campbell, Gurin and Miller (1954); Lane (1959); Seeman (1959); and Almond and Verba (1963). A large number of studies have attempted to assess the impact of variations in efficacy on political participation. See, for example, Gamson (1968); Aberbach (1969);

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURES

1063

date, much of this research has relied on questions developed by the Universityof Michigan'sSurvey ResearchCenter.2Over the past decade, however, several studies (see Balch, 1974; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982; Abramson,1983;Finkel,1984)have questionedthe SRCefficacy measures. Theneed for adequatemeasuresof the concept is undeniable.Accordingly, the present paper uses newly developed covariance structure analytic techniques(Joreskogand Sorbom,1984;Dwyer, 1983;Long, 1983a,1983b) to reassessthe utilityof the SRCefficacy indicatorsin the United Statesand several other liberal democracies. Analysesfocus on developing a model that captures prevailing conceptual distinctions between internal and externalpolitical efficacy and assessing the adequacy of such a model in variouspolitical settings.In the Americancase the structureof the model is contextsandfor selected subgroups evaluatedin electoralandnon-electoral in the population.

ANALYZINGPOLITICALEFFICACY

Perhaps the primary impetus for investigating the measurement properties of the SRC efficacy indicators has been conceptual. When introducingtheir measure of the concept, Campbell et al. (1954, p. 187) defined political efficacy as "the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process, i.e., that it is worthwhile to perform one's civic duties."Subsequentlyhowever, Lane (1959)and others (Converse, 1972;Balch, 1974;Shingles,1981;Craig and
and Hawkins,Marando Taylor (1971);VerbaandNie (1972);Wright(1976);Barnes,Kaaseet al. (1979); Seligson (1980); Craig and Maggiotto (1981); Elden (1981); Shingles (1981); Sigelman and Feldman (1983);and Finkel (1984). For a more comprehensivelisting of relevant works see Milbrathand Goel (1977). Other studies have focused on the initial or and/or changesin politicalefficacy at the individual aggregatelevels. Examples acquisition includeEastonandDennis (1967);Denniset al. (1968);Lyons(1970);Abramson(1972);Baker (1973);Jackson (1973);Jennings and Niemi (1974, 1978); Miller (1974);Rodgers (1974); Iyengar (1978);Long (1978);Madsen (1978);Dalton (1980);Elden (1981);Gutenbachand London(1983).For a generaloverview of findingssee Abramson(1983).Amongthe studies that have investigated the measurementproperties of survey questions designed to tap politicalefficacy are:Muller(1970);Mokken(1971);Converse(1972);Iyengar(1973);Asher Welchand Clark (1974);Balch (1974);House and Mason(1975);LeDuc (1976);McPherson, (1977);Shingles(1981);Craigand Maggiotto(1982);Hill (1982);and Finkel (1984). 2 Since 1952 the SRC has included measures of political efficacy in its quadrennial presidentialelection surveys, and since 1966 these measureshave been incorporatedin its election surveysas well. Studentsof masspoliticalattitudesin several off-yearcongressional othercountrieshave adoptedtheseitemsin theirsurveys.In Canada,for example,a subsetof the items has been included in ten nationalsurveysconducted between 1965and 1984 (see Kornberg al., 1982,ch. 3;Clarkeet al., 1984,ch. 2). The most comprehensivecross-national et Kaaseet al. (1979).Forthe eightcountries is studyto employ the SRCmeasures thatby Barnes, includedin this study see below.

1064

THE JOURNALOF POLITICS,VOL. 47, 1985

Maggiotto,1982)have argued that it is useful to distinguishbetween two types of efficacy-internal and external.This distinctionhasbeen adopted by the SRC itself in its summaryreport of Americanelection study data gatheredover the 1952-78 period. Thus,Milleret al. (1980,p. 253) statethat internal efficacy "indicates individuals' self-perceptions that they are capable of understandingpolitics and competent enough to participatein political acts such as voting." External efficacy, in contrast, "measures
expressed beliefs about political institutions .
. .

. The lack of external

efficacy ... indicates the belief that the public cannot influence political outcomes because governmentleadersand institutionsare unresponsive." Significantly,Milleret al. (1980,p. 273,278) use subsetsof the SRCitems to construct indices of internaland externalefficacy without presenting evidence thatit is appropriateto do so. Accordingto Milleret al., responses to the following three "agree-disagree"statements measure internal political efficacy: (1) People like me don't have any say about what the governmentdoes. (2) Voting is the only way that people like me can have any say about how the governmentrunsthings. (3) Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can't really understandwhat's going on. Their externalefficacy items are: (1) I don't thinkofficials care much what people like me think. (2) Generallyspeaking those we elect to Congress in Washingtonlose touch with the people pretty quickly. (3) Partiesare only interestedin people's votes but not in theiropinions. Index scores for internaland externalefficacy are computed by summing the number of disagree responses, with all responses being weighted equally. This technique of weighting each efficacy indicator equally is identical to that employed by most of those who have treated efficacy as one undifferentiatedconstruct. To date, most of the researchinvestigatingthe propertiesof these SRC items or subsets thereof has utilized conventionalreliabilityand validity tests-focusing on the strengthand patternsof correlationsamong these items and between them and selected othervariables,suchas politicaltrust and political participation (see Converse, 1972; Balch, 1974). More recently, however, Craig and Maggiotto (1982) and Finkel (1984) have used covariancestructureanalytictechniquesto initiatea reconsideration of the measurementcharacteristicsof the SRC efficacy items. Similarto some of the earliervalidationexercises (for example, Balch, 1974),both of these studieshave concluded thatsome of the SRCitems,particularly those designated as measures of internal efficacy, have serious problems. Although Finkel is willing to consider substantivehypotheses involving

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURES

1065

efficacy despite apparentmeasurementdifficulties, Craig and Maggiotto (1982,p. 99-100) argue that it is necessary to abandon at least some of the SRC statementsin favor of new measures. Given the thirty-year investment in the SRC efficacy measures, we believe that it would be premature to abandon these items without additionalinvestigation.Such an inquiry should (a) consider a variety of alternativemeasurementmodels using the SRC items or subsets thereof; (b) determinethe extent of variationin the goodness-of-fitof such models acrosspoliticallyimportantgroupsin particular politicalsystems;(c) assess the utilityof any model of efficacy which might fit SRCAmericanelection study data reasonably well for measuring efficacy in other political milieux;and (d) examinethe externalvalidity of any such model. For these purposesthe covariancestructureanalysisprogram (LISREL)developed by Joreskogand Sorbom (1984)is well suited. The present paper addresses these tasks. We begin by focusing on the SRC 1976nationalelection survey data as a test case. After an examination of the goodness-of-fit of several possible measurementmodels, the bestfitting model that distinguishesbetween internaland externalefficacy is applied to two other recent SRC election datasets (1972 and 1980). The utility of this model for measuring efficacy among four politically important groups in the United States (blacks and whites, men and women) also is assessed. Next, we employ the Barnes,Kaaseet al. EightNations data to examine the goodness-of-fit of the model in non-electoral contexts and in other liberal democratic political systems. The analyses conclude with an assessmentof the externalvalidity of the model.
MEASUREMENT MODELS

Figure 1 presentsefficacy as it is usuallyoperationalizedin the literature by those who treat it as one undifferentiated construct. Although researchersmay acknowledge thatan additive index based on thismodel is imperfect by reporting a reliability measure such as a, there is rarely a correctionfor attenuationincorporatedinto subsequentanalysesusing the efficacy construct. More generally, this model assumesthat: (1) there is a single efficacy constructthat accounts for all of the covarianceamong the six indicators; (2) all indicators have equivalent strength as measures of efficacy, which is reflected in each of themhavinga loading, Xi,of 1.0in the figure; and (3) there is no measurementerrorin any of the indicators (for example, 8i = 0). These assumptionsare very restrictiveand each has been challenged in research on efficacy and its measurement (Muller, 1970; Converse, 1972; Balch, 1974; Madsen, 1978;Craig and Maggiotto, 1982; Finkel, 1984).

1066

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 47, 1985 FIGURE 1 POLITICALEFFICACY, SINGLE CONSTRUCT, No MEASUREMENT ERROR

Eficacy

1.0/

1.0/

1.0/

1.0\

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

81

82

83

84

85

86

Key: xi - People like me don't have any say about what the government does. X2 - Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can't really understand what's going on. X3 - I don't think public officials care much what people like me think. X4 - Generally speaking those we elect to Congress in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly. xs - Parties are only interested in people's votes but not in their opinions.

Figure 2 presents a less restrictive model. Here we still have six indicators, but certain assumptions have been relaxed. First, we have allowed each indicator to have a different loading on the efficacy construct.This meansthatsome items may be more importantthanothers. Second, we have allowed each indicatorto have some degree of random error in its measurement. Measurementerrors are reflected by the 8i's. There are two importantrestrictionson the model in figure 2. Only a single efficacy constructis postulated (i.e., no attempt is made to differentiate between internal and external efficacy), and correlations between measurementerrorsarenot permitted.Statistically, relaxingeitherof these restrictions would have the same effect; for example, a hypothesized correlationbetween a pair of 6i'swould be equivalentto positing a second factor to explain the relationshipbetween the two indicators.

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURES FIGURE 2 POLITICALEFFICACY, SINGLE CONSTRUCT, WITH MEASUREMENTERROR

1067

81

432

~~83

84

85

86

The model in figure 2 is the first one we test empirically. It does not account for the correlationsamong the six indicators-i9 equals 168.64for the LISREL solution using Pearsonian correlations and 575.78 for the solution using tetrachoric correlations (see table 1).3 Both of these are significantat the .001level, which means that the model fails to reproduce the correlations.4 Analysisof the LISRELoutput indicatesthat one of the indicatorsused by the SRCto measureinternalefficacy-i.e., "votingis the only way"-has an especially poor fit with the model. It has the three largestnormalizedresiduals,two of which linkit to indicatorsidentifiedby
for correlations 3JoreskogandSorbom(1984,IV.1-IV.3)recommendthe use of tetrachoric covariancestructureanalyseswhen observed variablesare measuredas dichotomies.The LISRELVI programwas used to compute these coefficients. Chi-squarestatisticsderived purposes.Sincetetrachoric are fromanalysesof thesecorrelations presentedfor comparative correlations"areunlikely to behave like ordinarysample moments even asymptotically" shouldbe treatedwith caution. (Joreskogand Sorbom, 1984,IV.6) these chi-squares was The decisionto use the .001level of significance promptedby the largesamplesizesof the datasetsused in the severalanalyses(e.g., N = 2062for the 1976SRCelectionsurvey).For applicationof chi-square,it shouldbe readerswho may not be familiarwith this particular noted that large values of chi-squaresignify that the model being tested fails to fit the data-thus, the smallerthe value of chi-squarethe better the fit of the model.

1068

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 47, 1985

1 TABLE COMPARISON OFSINGLE-CONSTRUCTTWO-CONSTRUCT AND SOLUTIONS

TETRACHORIC CORRELATIONS
2 PROB

MODEL

PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS"
X2 PROB

A. 1 Construct, Fig. 2, 6-items, 9 df

575.78

.000

168.64

.000

B. 1 Construct,Fig. 2, 5-items, 5 df C. 1 Construct,Fig. 3,

3 df D. 2 Constructs, Fig. 4, 3 df

130.56
5.86 5.86 851.72 124.70 845.86

.000
.119 .119 .000 .000 .000

38.45
1.79 1.79 221.14 36.66 219.35

.000
.618 .618 .000 .000 .000

E. 2 Constructs,T-equiv.,
7 df

F. Comparisonof B to C and C to D, 2 df G. Comparisonof D and E,

4 df ?N = 2060 " N = 2062

the SRC as measures of internal efficacy, and one of which links it to a SRC external efficacy measure. Also, it has a relatively low loading, .412, on the hypothesized factor. These findings are consonant with those of previous research that have identified the "voting" item as being of questionable value (Mokken, 1971; Converse, 1972; LeDuc, 1976; Craig and Maggiotto, 1982).5 By omitting it we have a solution based on five indicators of a single efficacy construct. The revised model has is values of 38.45 and 130.56 for the Pearsonian and tetrachoric correlations, respectively. Both of these solutions yield statistically significant (<.001) improvements, with the differences in i4 being 130.19 for the analysis using Pearsonian correlations and 445.22 for that employing tetrachoric correlations. However, the model still is unable to account for either set of correlations adequately. Figure 3 presents a modification of the five-item, single-factor model that markedly improves our ability to account for patterns in the data. For
5 Some analystsalso have criticized the "voting"statementfor its ambiguity.Craig and Maggiotto(1982,p. 89), for example,arguethat"disagreement [with the 'voting'statements mightdenote a belief thatone can be effective in ways otherthanvoting. . ., with agreement indicatingone'sconfidencethatgovernmentcan be controlledby citizenswho exercisetheir rightto vote." One also might arguethatpeople with a low sense of efficacy might disagree with the statementbecause they believe that there is no way, voting included, by which a citizen can influencegovernment.

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURES

1069

correlations(p = .618)and 5.86 thismodel X23equals 1.79for the Pearsonian for the tetrachoriccorrelations(p = .119) (table 1). This is a remarkablefit given a survey of over 2,000 cases and the sensitivity of x2 estimates to sample size. It is importantto note, however, that the model in figure 3 is empiricallydeterminedratherthantheoreticallyspecified. The model was derived using an automatic modification procedure incorporated in LISREL VI (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1984). This procedure sequentially removesconstraints a model usingthe criterionof achievingthe greatest on improvement in goodness-of-fit. In the present case this procedure determined that two pairs of measurement error terms need to be correlated.As shown in figure3, the correlatederrorsarebetween 81and 62 as well as between 64 and 85. Wheninterpretingthese purely empiricalresults,it is noteworthythat 8i and 62 both are associated with two of the indicators that the SRC has designated as measures of internal efficacy (people like R have no say; politics and government are too complicated for a person like R to comprehend). Also, 64 and 85 are associatedwith two of theirindicatorsof externalefficacy (congressmenlose touch with the people; partiesare only

FIGURE 3
POLITICALEFFICACY, SINGLE CONSTRUCT, CORRELATED MEASUREMENTERROR

icacy
81
v

8~~2

83
3v

84
v

~~~ 2

1070

THE JOURNALOF POLITICS,VOL. 47, 1985

interestedin votes). This suggests the utility of investigatinga two-factor model that distinguishesexplicitly between internaland externalefficacy. In this model (figure 4) Xi (no say) and X2 (politics complicated) are hypothesized to load on factor one (internalefficacy), while X4(congressmen lose touch) and X5(partiesonly interestedin votes) load on factor two (external efficacy). These linkages, of course, are consonant with the patternof correlatederrorterms in figure 3. As for X3, its failureto manifesta correlatederrortermin the empirically determined model (model 3) means that we must rely on other criteria when deciding how to link it to the two factors. This item is used by the SRC as one of three measuresof externalefficacy. Thus, we might simply hypothesize that it will be linked to factor two in our model. However, the wording of thisitem ("Idon't thinkpublic officials care muchwhat people like me think")is such that it would seem to elicit perceptions not of the responsiveness of government officials to public opinion generally, but rather their sensitivity to the opinions of "people like me." Since the questionwording involves relativelybalancedreferencesto politicalactors and the respondent, we hypothesize that it will be linked to both efficacy factors. It furtheris noteworthy thatmodel 4 has no correlationsamong the error terms,but allows the internaland externalefficacy factorsto be correlated with one another.The correlationbetween the two efficacy factors, 021, is not an arbitraryvalue as it is with an oblique rotationusing conventional factor analytic procedures (Harman, 1967, pp. 334-41). Rather, t21 is mathematicallyidentified-it is a maximumlikelihoodestimateof the true correlationbetween factors.6 The goodness-of-fit for thisconceptuallybased model is identicalto that for the empiricallyderived model in figure3. Again,thisis expected in that equivalentto correlatederrortermsin a single-factormodel arestatistically the presence of one or more additional factors. The advantage of the two-factor model in figure 4 is conceptual. The two-construct model accounts for the relationships among the variables in terms of two theoretically specified forms of efficacy, whereas the previous singlefactor model with correlated errors accounts for these relationshipsin terms of substantivelyuninterpretedrelationshipsamong errorterms.
o It is difficultto predicta priorijusthow largephiis likelyto be. CraigandMaggiotto(1982, p. 86), for example, arguethat"becauseof theirdifferentreferents... we shouldnot expect the relationshipbetween internaland externalefficacy to be strong even in democratic becauseinternaland shouldbe substantial settings."Othersmight arguethat this correlation externalefficacy both are componentsof the more generalconcept of efficacy. Muchwould seem to depend on one's theoryregardingthe sourcesof the two types of efficacy. Since no such theoryis well established(Abramson,1983,pp. 146-89),we preferto let the data speak for themselves.

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURESFIGURE 4 INTERNALAND EXTERNALPOLITICALEFFICACY, WITH MEASUREMENTERROR #21

1071

952l~~

Efficacy

Efficacy

XA1 X21

X31

X32

X42

52

81

82

8~~3

84

;5

The goodness-of-fit characteristicsof the two-factor model in figure 4 are not confined to the 1976 data. Analysesof the Pearsoniancorrelation matrices for other SRC presidential election data yield similar results. Applyingthis model to the post-electionwave of the 1972study (N = 1003), for example,yields a X of 4.72 (p = .194).For the 1980survey (post-election wave N = 1173) X3 equals 1.73 (p = .631). The adjusted goodness-of-fit indices for these two cases are .991 and .997, respectively.7
Using 1972 and 1976 SRC data Craig and Maggiotto test a two-factor (internaland in equals61.66(p = .000); external)efficacy model. The model failsto fit both datasets: 197248 table3 (p. 93) showssamplesizes in 1976,43.16(p = .000).Inspectionof Craigand Maggiotto's different from ours. For 1972it appearsthat they used the pre-electionwave of the survey. Sincewe rely on post-electiondata for ourotheranalyses,we appliedtheirsix-itemmodel to of the 1972post-electiondata. This analysisyielded a 4g 30.30 (p = .000). For 1976theirN is considerablysmallerthanours,perhapsreflectingtheirdeletionof missingdata for variables used in validationtests.However, an analysisof the six-item,two-factormodel usingourdata also yields a poor fit: ig equals 52.00 (p = .000). It also should be noted that the Craig and Maggiottomodel does not specify tauequivalency(Dwyer, 1983,p. 27);it permitsthe several
I

1072

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 47, 1985

Althoughthe model shown in figure 4 will serve as our primaryone for the remainderof thisanalysis,it is interestingto examinea restrictionon it. As noted when discussing the original model in figure 1, it is common practice to weight all of the efficacy indicatorsequally when employing them in additive indices. It is possible to test this equivalency of items by the constraining X'sfor the indicatorsof internaland externalefficacy to be equal. Whenthistau-equivalentmodel is tested with the 1976datait fails to fit the data; X equals 221.14 (p = .000) for the Pearsoniancorrelationsand 851.72 (p = .000) for the tetrachoric correlations (table 1). This clearly demonstrates the adverse consequences of assuming that the several indicators of political efficacy in the SRC data should be weighted equally.8 We will examine the model in figure 4 in greater detail after investigating the validity of its structure for important groups in the population.

INTER-GROUPCOMPARISONS:GENDER AND RACE

For analytic purposes it is important for a theoretical construct to be validated across various politically relevant dimensions of stratification. Althoughpersonsfrom different groupsin a populationmightbe expected to vary in their level of internal and external efficacy (measured by a difference of means), a more basic question is whether the measurement models of theirefficacy orientationsare structuredin the same way. If, for example, the measurementmodel for blacks is structureddifferently than that for whites, it would be misleadingto compare mean levels of internal and externalefficacy for these two groups.This considerationsuggeststhe utility of comparingthe structureof the SRC efficacy items for politically importantgroupsin a population.Here we will confine ourattentionto two such comparisons-one for men and women and another for blacks and whites.9 For comparisonsacross populations, instead of employing Pearsonian correlations,we have used covariancematrices.This is done because there
itemsto have differentloadingson the hypothesizedfactors.If theseloadingsareconstrained to be equal, the fit of the model is markedlyworse for both the 1972and 1976datasets- 2X2 being 73.71 (p = .000) and 191.13(p = .000),respectively. 8 Tau-equivalentmodels also fail to fit the 1972 and 1980 post-election data: using Pearsonian correlation matricesthe X7'S 117.29(p = .000)and75.84(p = .000),respectively. are 9 Hypotheses(Abramson, 1983,pp. 152-65) regarding possiblesourcesof groupdifferences in efficacy suggest the appropriateness these comparisons the contemporary of in American politicalcontext.Certainly, however,othercomparisons-by socioeconomicstatus,education or age cohort, for example-would seem apposite as well, and these should be pursuedin futureinvestigations.

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURES

1073

TABLE 2 GENDER ANDRACECOMPARISONS

CONTEXTUALVARIABLE AND MODEL

X2

PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS*

PROB
.621 .717 .742 .019 .619 .212 .000 .661 .005 .478 .382 .337 .494 .294 .190 .720 .251 .455
=

Gender A. No Constraints,6 df B. A, Constrained,12 df C. Ax, 0 Constrained, 13 df D. Ax, 0, e6 Constrained,18 df E. A versus B, 6 df F. B versus C, 1 df C. C versus D, 5 df H. A versus C, 7 df I. A versus D, 12 df Race A. No Constraints,6 df B. Ax, Constrained, 12 df C. Ax, 0 Constrained,13 df D. Ax,40,86 Constrained,18 df E. A versus B, 6 df F. B versus C, 1 df G. C versus D, 5 df H. A versus C, 7 df I. A versus D, 12 df

4.41 8.84 9.40 32.52 4.43 1.56 23.12 4.99 28.11 5.53 12.83 14.55 17.42 7.30 1.72 2.87 9.02 11.89 1827

WomenN = 1180, Men N = 881, BlackN = 182,WhiteN

are some differences in the variances of the efficacy items across the stratifying variables (Specht and Warren, 1975). Also, the need to employ covariance matrices for inter-group comparisons effectively precludes the use of tetrachoric coefficients for which all variances are assumed to be unity. The resulting comparisons of the model in figure 4 by gender and race are displayed in table 2. There are four ways in which we assess the goodness-of-fit of the model for these groups. First, we compare by race and gender using the same pattern of relationships between variables and factors, but impose no other constraints. This means that regardless of race and gender we impose the model shown in figure 4. This model (designated as submodel A) results in an excellent fit of the data for each gender and racial category. For gender J6 is 4.41 (p = .621), i.e., the structures of internal and external efficacy orientations are not significantly different for men and women. For race the results also are insignificant-i6 equals 5.53 (p = .478): thus, we conclude that the efficacy items have the same structure for both racial groups.

1074

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 47,1985

A more restrictive comparison by race and gender involves imposing both identical factor structuresand item loadings on all subpopulations (submodel B). The latter means that each item must have an identical loading for men and women and for blacks and whites. This is a major restrictionand the criteriontypicallyemployed when determiningif two or more groupshave invariantfactorstructures. Applyingfactorialinvariance to the two gender groups yields a i12 of 8.84 (p = .717). This result is not significantlyworse thanthatfor the previousmodel-the difference in x2's being 4.43 (p = .619, df = 6). The comparisonsby race also yield similar patterns, with the i6 being 12.83 (p = .382) and the difference between submodel A and B having a i6 of 7.30 (p = .294). A third comparison (submodel C) is even more restrictivethan the first two. Here we require the same pattern (as with submodel A) and the invariant factor structure (as with submodel B), but add to this the restriction that inter-factor covariance is invariant.This means that the factors are identically constructed across groups and that they have identicalrelationships.Withthese restrictionsthe i equals9.40 (p = .742) for gender and 14.55 (p = .337) for race. Comparing these results to submodels A and B (see table 2), we see that the restrictionis reasonable. Therefore,we can conclude thatthereareno differencesbetween men and women or blacks and whites in the relationship between internal and externalefficacy as that is measuredby the five SRC items. A fourth level of restrictionimposes the identical measurementerror acrossgender and racialcategories.Thisis not usuallyconsideredcriticalto making inter-group comparisons, and it represents an extraordinary validation criterion for group similarity.By imposing identical measurement errorswe have a 18 equal to 32.52 (p = .019)for gender and 17.42(p = .494) for race. In neither instance does the model fail to account for the covariances(at the .001level of significance).In the case of race the fit is so good that the probabilitylevel is actuallyslightlyhigherthanit was for the unconstrainedmodel which had only 6 degrees of freedom, compared to 18 degrees of freedom for the most restrictivemodel. To recapitulate,the purpose of comparingthe two-factormeasurement model of efficacy by gender and race is to assess its applicability to important groups in the population. Analyses indicate that an identical model can be applied equally well to each of these groups,and thus,in the contemporary United States at least, the structureof political efficacy is invariantacross race and gender.
THE Two-FACTOR SOLUTION FOR THE COMBINED SAMPLE

Having demonstrated the applicability of the two-factor model for gender and racialgroups, we proceed to a more detailed considerationof the model as it applies to the combined sample. Table 3 provides the

A NEW MODELFOR OLD MEASURES

1075

TABLE 3 FOR POPULATION SOLUTION COMBINED Two-FACTOR STANDARDIZED) (ITEMS

TETRACHORIC CORRELATIONS VALUE A A21 A31 A32 A42 A52
021

COEFFICIENT

PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS VALUE .677 .344 .322 .451 .619 .736 .747 .541 .882 .463 .616 .467 t-RATIO 18.737 13.033 4.716 6.690 26.253 30.188 18.112 12.126 29.919 19.827 24.721 17.670

t-RATIO 34.322 20.243 7.500 16.771 41.237 45.865 37.015 7.868 30.069 20.816 23.999 17.956

61
62

63
64

AS

.864 .465 .283 .628 .796 .862 .775 .254 .783 .250 .367 .258

AdjustedGoodness-ofFit Index
.997 5.86 .998 1.79

coefficients for all linkages shown in figure 4. Since we are examining a single population we have used correlation coefficients as inputs to the program and report results for both Pearsonian and tetrachoric matrices. The adjusted goodness-of-fit indices are .998 for the former and .997 for the latter-indicating that the model explains virtually all of the covariance among the indicators. Moreover, every coefficient is highly significant. It also is noteworthy that regardless of whether we rely on Pearsonian or tetrachoric correlations, the internal and external efficacy factors are strongly related- 02, equals .747 and .775, respectively. By squaring these coefficients we see that internal and external efficacy share between 55.8% and 60.1%of their variance in common. Thus, although many researchers have distinguished between them on a conceptual basis, and we support this empirically, as measured by the SRC items they are highly interrelated constructs. The values of Xi's reported in table 3 are the factor loadings of the indicators on their respective factors. These values show why the tauequivalent model tested above did not work. The first item (people like R have no say) is the dominant indicator of internal efficacy with a loading of .667 using the Pearsonian correlations and .864 using the the tetrachoric

1076

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 47, 1985

In estimates.'0 contrast,the second and thirditems (politicsis complicated, public officials don'tcare) are only moderatelyrelatedto internalefficacy. Despite this, both items have highly significant loadings and should be included in any analysis of internalefficacy based on SRC data. When measuring external efficacy, differentials in the strength of various loadings are less dramatic,but the fifth item (partiesare only interestedin votes), appears to be somewhat more central using both Pearsonianand tetrachoriccorrelations.Still, the values of X32(public officials don't care) and lose touch) areboth substantial highlysignificant and X42 (congressmen statistically.
POLITICALEFFICACY IN OTHER POLITICALCONTEXTS

To thispoint we have confined ourattentionto a singlecountry,andhave relied exclusively on SRC election study data. A two-factor model of efficacy fits these data very well, and in termsof face validity, the pattern of loadings of items on these factors corresponds to the prevailing conceptual distinctionbetween internaland externalefficacy. To test the more general applicabilityof this model it will be useful to analyze it with data generated in different political milieux. The Eight-Nation Political Action Study conducted by Barnes, Kaase and others (1979) is ideally suited for this purpose since theirsurvey instrumentincorporatesefficacy statementsidentical to those in the Americannationalelection studies. These statements were administered to national samples in Austria, Finland, the German Federal Republic, Great Britain,Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States. The inclusion of the latter country in the study makes it possible to check the applicability of the model for the U.S. in a non-electoralcontext. The efficacy data gathered by the Eight-Nation project have the additional advantage of having somewhatmore precise measuresthanthose employed in the SRCsurveys. Ratherthansimply ascertaining respondents"agree" "disagree" or with a if particular efficacy statement,Barnes,Kaaseet al. askedrespondentsif they "agree strongly," "agree,""disagree,"or "disagree strongly"with each statement. Thus, these data will help us to ascertainif the dichotomous responseformatused in the formerstudiesmight affect the inferencesone would make about the structureof efficacy. Inspection of the marginalsfor the efficacy statements in the several surveys indicates that response rates were satisfactoryin every country except Italy.A sizable numberof respondentsthereindicatedthatthey did not understanda particularstatementor the question sequence as a whole.
10 This finding agrees with those of Muller(1970), McPherson al. (1977) and Madsen et (1978),whose analysesindicatethe importanceof the "nosay"item.

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURES

1077

TABLE 4 COMPARISON TWO-FACTOR SOLUTION FOR POLITICALEFFICACY OF ITEMSIN SEVEN COUNTRIES

COUNTRY

X3

p .273 .543 .625 .013 .139 .724 .002 .001

AGFI? .994 .996 .997 .977 .990 .998 .986 .994

0O .655 .746 .737 .679 .725 .818 .711 .752

N 1318 1066 1266 945 1085 1554 2111 9345

Austria Finland Great Britain The Netherlands Switzerland United States West Germany Seven Countries+

3.90 2.14 1.75 10.79 5.50 1.32 14.50 27.98

? - Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index + - All Countries Listed Above

Overall,only 69.5% the Italiansansweredall six items. For the remaining of seven countries response rates were considerably better-ranging from 78.7% (the Netherlands) to 91.5% (GFR). Given the relatively high rate of non-responsefor Italy, we decided to omit this countryfrom the analyses. The resultsof applying ourtwo-factor model (model 4) to the remaining seven countriesare displayed in table 4. Generally,the model fares quite well in every instance, with x2'srangingfrom a low of 1.32 for the United Statesto a high of 14.50for West Germanyand having an averagevalue of 5.70. In no case are the x2'sstatisticallysignificantat the .001level, although for the GFR this value is closely approximated (p = .002). In the Netherlandsp equals .013 and in the remainingcountriesp values exceed .05 by a wide margin-averaging .461. Also suggestive of the fit of the model to the severaldatasetsarethe adjustedgoodness-of-fitindiceswhich rangefrom a low of .986 (GFR)to a high of .998 (U.S.). The averagefor this index across the seven countriesis .991. Also noteworthy are the phi coefficients measuring the relationship between the two factors in the model. In each country these values are quite large, the minimumbeing .655 (Austria) the maximumbeing .818 and (U.S.). These results are similar to those obtained in our SRC American analyses, and they indicate that the strong correlationbetween the two factors identified as internaland externalefficacy is not peculiar to data gathered in an electoral context or to the United States more generally. Rather,the SRCitems yield strongintercorrelations among these factorsin a variety of political contexts. Overall, then, analyses of the Barnes,Kaaseet al. data suggest that the model of politicalefficacy developed usingthe 1976electionstudydatahas broad applicability.The structureof efficacy orientations,at least insofar

1078

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 47, 1985

as this can be ascertained by the SRC items, is quite similar in several contemporaryliberal democracies. Moreover,comparisonsof the results for the Americanelection data with those for the Barnes,KaaseAmerican sample indicate that this structureis invariantacross electoral and nonelectoral contexts in this country, despite the many powerful short-term Finally,a comparisonof the forces thatnormallyare at play in the former."I resultsfor the Americananalysesalso suggeststhatthe dichotomousagreedisagree response format of the election survey efficacy statementsdoes not appreciablyalter the fit of the model to the data.
EXTERNAL VALIDITY

Thus far we have established that it is possible to develop a two-factor model of five of the SRC political efficacy items. The model has considerable "face validity" appeal, with five items loading on the two factors,as one would expect in termsof the conceptualdistinctionbetween internal and external efficacy. However, if the two factors tentatively identified as internaland externalefficacy distinguishbetween these two types of efficacy, they should have varying relationshipswith selected othervariables.The 1976SRC dataset containstwo batteriesof items that would seem useful for validationpurposesin terms of recent literatureon this concept (see Abramson,1983,pp. 146-89).Specifically, since 1964the SRChas included a set of fourquestionsdesigned to measurerespondents'perceptions of government responsiveness.' Assumingthat such perceptions are an importantbasis of externalefficacy, one would expect thatthe government responsivenessitems would be more stronglyrelated to this form of efficacy than to its internalvariant. Similarly,in several studies including that in 1976, the SRC included a set of five items designed to measurerespondents'sense of personalcompetence.'3Given the meaning

11 To date, there has been relatively little researchon how such forces affect political efficacy. However, existing studies (Weissberg,1975;Wright,1976;Iyengar, 1980) report modest or negligibleeffects. 12 The SRCgovernment indexis based on the followingitems:(1) "Overthe responsiveness years,how muchattentiondo you feel the governmentpays to what the people thinkwhen it decides what to do-a good deal, some, or not much?"(2) "How much do you feel that politicalpartieshelp to makethe governmentpay attentionto what the people think-a good deal, some, or not much?"(3) "Andhow much do you feel that havingelections makes the governmentpay attentionto what the people think-a good deal, some, or not much?"(4) pay "Howmuchattentiondo you thinkmost congressmen to the people who elect themwhen they decide what to do in congress-a good deal, some, or not much?" 13The personalcompetence items are:(1) "Do you thinkit'sbetterto planyourlife a good way ahead, or would you say life is too much a matterof luck to plan ahead very far?"(2) "When do make plansahead,do you usuallyget to carryout thingsthe way you expected, you or do thingsusuallycome up [to] make you change your plans?"(3) "Haveyou usuallyfelt

A NEW MODELFOR OLD MEASURES

1079

z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nI Lz~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QZ
-

" 60~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

20

640

,Z

1080

THE JOURNALOF POLITICS,VOL. 47, 1985

of internalefficacy as a feeling of personalpoliticalcompetence, the more general personal competence items should correlate more strongly with internalratherthan externalefficacy. LISRELenablesus to performthese externalvaliditytests.'4Ratherthan attemptingto posit causallinkagesamongthe internalandexternalefficacy factors and the measures of government responsiveness and personal competence, we will examine a factor analyticmodel for these constructs (see figure 5) and inspect the phi matrixto determine the strengthof the relationships among the four factors (internal and external efficacy, personalcompetence). Sinceparallelanalyses governmentresponsiveness, using Pearsonianand tetrachoric correlationshave yielded very similar resultsin previouscases, for the sake of conveniencewe will utilizeonly the former coefficients here. The analyses will be run twice-once with elements in the phi matrixfree, and once with the coefficients measuring relationshipsbetween government responsivenessand personal competence on the one hand, and the two efficacy factors on the other, constrainedto be equal. If our expectations regardinghow internaland externalefficacy are related to perceptions of personal competence and government responsivenessare correct, the second model should have a significantly worse fit than the first. The relative magnitudes of the model also shouldbe in coefficients in the phi matrixfor the unconstrained accord with these expectations. Empirically, the constrained model yields a J60 of 291.99. When constraints on the phi matrix are removed, s58 equals 279.66.15This difference is not statistically significantat the .001level. However, the level of significance closely approaches this value (p = .002), and the relative sizes of the phi coefficients are in accord with expectations.Specifically, the correlationsbetween the government responsivenessfactor and the

prettysureyourlife wouldworkouttheway you wantit to, orhavetherebeen timeswhenyou haven'tbeen sureaboutit?"(4) "Somepeople feel theycanruntheirlivesprettymuchtheway they want to; othersfeel the problemsof life are sometimestoo big for them. Whichone are you most like?"(5) "Ingeneral,how satisfyingdo you find the way you'respendingyourlife thesedays?Wouldyou call it completelysatisfying,prettysatisfying,or not very satisfying?" competence,we Giventhatthe latteritem does not have face validityas a measureof personal did not use it. However, a replicationof the analysisincludingthis item yielded virtually identicalresults. 14 For a useful discussion analytictechniquesto of strategiesfor usingcovariancestructure conductsuch tests, see Jackson(1983). 15 These chi-square valuesare muchlargerthen those for the two-factorefficacy analyses reported above. The principal reason would appear to be the existence of unspecified common causes of the externalefficacy and governmentresponsivenessitems measuring perceptions of the attentivenessof congressmento the public. This is suggested by the between the errortermsfor theseitems.Giventhe scope of the presenceof a largecorrelation presentpaper, we do not attemptto specify what these variablesmight be.

A NEW MODEL FOR OLD MEASURES

1081

internaland externalefficacy factorsare .588and .687,respectively, while those between the personal competence factor and the internal and externalefficacy factorsare .393and .293.Thus, our model of internaland externalefficacy behaves as anticipated in terms of a pattern of linkages with two other factors, personal competence and perceived government responsiveness,thathave been accorded prominencein recent analysesof the determinantsof political efficacy.
CONCLUSION

Over the past decade the adequacy of statements used in the SRC national election studies for measuring political efficacy has been questioned. Some analystshave suggested thatseveral of these statements should be abandoned in favor of new ones. The present covariance structure analysis, while not gainsaying the possibility of developing superiormeasures,indicatesthata subset of the SRCitems may be utilized to constructa two-factor efficacy model thatfits a varietyof Americanand non-Americandatasets quite well. More specifically, detailed analyses of the 1976 SRC national election survey data indicate that such a model fits these data both for the population as a whole and for racial and gender categories therein. The model also manifestscomparablegoodness-of-fitcharacteristics other for SRC election surveys (i.e., 1972, 1980),as well as for seven of the national surveys included in the Barnes, Kaase et al. Eight-Nation Study. A comparison of the analyses of the SRC election data with those of the American sample in this study suggests that the model works well in electoral and non-electoralcontexts and is substantiallyunaffected by the dichotomousresponse format employed in the former surveys. In terms of the face validity of the items loading on the two factors, the model appears to capture the distinction between internaland external efficacy as these concepts have been developed in the literature as they and have been measuredby the SRC. Moreover,investigationof the 1976SRC data indicates that the relative magnitudesof correlationsbetween these factors and measures of personal competence and government responsiveness are consonantwith expectations. The analyses reveal a number of points that should be noted by those who wish to use the SRC items to measure political efficacy. Consistent with the results of previous inquiries, the "voting is the only way" item createsdifficultiesand probablyshouldnot be employed to measureeither internalor externalefficacy. Of the remainingfive statements,"peoplelike me don'thave any say"and "politicsis too complicated"load on one factor (internal efficacy), while "congressmen lose touch" and "parties only interested in votes" load on a second (externalefficacy). "Officialsdon't

1082

THE JOURNALOF POLITICS,VOL. 47, 1985

care"is ambiguous on its face and loads on both factors. Regardingthe construction of measures based on these items, the assumption of tau equivalence is unwarranted; the several items should be weighted differentially. Also, the amount of measurement error in the items is substantial.These latter two findings indicate that covariance structure analytic procedures, such as those in the LISRELprogram, will be very usefulwhen conductinginvestigationsthatincludethe SRCefficacy items. Finally, the strong correlations between internal and external efficacy factors suggest that collinearity problems need to be addressed when attempting to incorporate both factors as independent variables in the same model. In sum, the present paper suggests that the SRC statements may be employed to measure internal and external efficacy. However, simple, equally weighted additive indices will not suffice. Rather,more sophisticated measurement models and newly available covariance structure analytic techniques should be employed when using SRC-type data to investigatepolitical efficacy.
REFERENCES Aberbach,Joel D. (1969). "Alienation and Political Behavior." AmericanPolitical Science Review 63: 86-99. Abramson, PaulR. (1972)."Political EfficacyandPolitical TrustAmongBlackSchoolchildren: Two Explanations." Journalof Politics34: 1243-69. (1983).PoliticalAttitudesin America.San Francisco:W. H. Freeman. Almond, Gabriel, and Sidney Verba (1963). The Civic Culture.Princeton,NJ: Princeton UniversityPress. (eds.) (1980).The Civic CultureRevisited.Boston:Little, Brown. Asher,Herbert(1974)."TheReliability the PoliticalEfficacy Items."PoliticalMethodology of 1: 45-72. Baker, Kendall L. (1973). "PoliticalParticipation,Political Efficacy, and Socializationin Germany." ComparativePolitics6: 73-98. Balch, George S. (1974). "MultipleIndicatorsin Survey Research:The Concept 'Sense of PoliticalEfficacy.' " PoliticalMethodology1: 1-43. Barnes,SamuelH., MaxKaaseet al. (1979).PoliticalAction.BeverlyHills:Sage Publications. Campbell,Angus,GeraldGurinand Warren Miller(1954).The VoterDecides. Evanston, E. IL: Row, Peterson. Campbell,Angus,Philip E. Converse,WarrenE. Miller,and Donald E. Stokes (1960).The AmericanVoter. New York:JohnWiley. Clarke,HaroldD., JaneJenson,LawrenceLeDuc andJonPammett(1984).AbsentMandate: The Politicsof Discontentin Canada.Toronto:Gage Publishing. Converse,Philip E. (1972)."Changein the AmericanElectorate."In Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse (eds.), The Human Meaningof Social Change. New York:Russell Sage. Craig, Stephen C., and Michael A. Maggiotto (1981). "PoliticalDiscontent and Political Action."Journalof Politics43: 514-22. (1982)."Measuring PoliticalEfficacy."PoliticalMethodology8: 85-109.

A NEW MODELFOR OLD MEASURES

1083

Dalton,RussellJ. (1980)."Reassessing ParentalSocialization: IndicatorUnreliability Versus Generational Transfer." AmericanPoliticalScience Review 74: 421-31. Dennis, Jack, Leon Lindberg, Donald McCroneand Rodney Stiefbold (1968). "Political Socialization to Democratic Orientations in Four Western Systems." Comparative PoliticalStudies1: 71-101. Dwyer, JamesH. (1983).StatisticalModelsfor the Socialand BehavioralSciences.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Easton,David, and JackDennis (1967)."TheChild'sAcquisition RegimeNorms:Political of Efficacy."AmericanPoliticalScience Review 61: 25-38. Elden, J. Maxwell (1981). "PoliticalEfficacy at Work: The Connection Between More AutonomousForms of Workplace Organizationand a More ParticipatoryPolitics." AmericanPoliticalScience Review 75: 43-58. Finkel,Steven E. (1984)."Reciprocal Effects of Participation PoliticalEfficacy:A Panel and Analysis."Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April,1984. Gamson,WilliamA. (1968).Power and Discontent.Homewood, IL:Dorsey Press. Gutenbach, Thomas M., and Bruce London (1983). "Race, Political Orientation and An Participation: EmpiricalTest of Four Competing Thories."AmericanSociological Review 48: 439-53. Harman,HarryH. (1967).ModernFactorAnalysis.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Hawkins,BrettW., VincentL. Marando GeorgeA. Taylor(1971)."Efficacy,Mistrust and and PoliticalParticipation: FindingsfromAdditionalData and Indicators." journalof Politics
33: 1130-36.

Hill, Kim Quaile (1982). "RetestReliabilityfor Trust in Governmentand Governmental Responsiveness Measures: ResearchNote." PoliticalMethodology8: 33-46. A House,JamesS., and WilliamM. Mason.(1975)."Political Alienation America." in American SociologicalReview 40: 123-45. Iyengar, Shanto (1973). "The Problem of Response Stability: Some Correlates and Consequences." AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience 17:797-808. (1978)."TheDevelopmentof PoliticalEfficacy in a New Nation:The Case of Andhra Pradesh." ComparativePoliticalStudies11:337-54. Jackson,JohnS. (1973)."Alienation BlackPoliticalParticipation." and Journalof Politics35: 849-85. Jackson, John E. (1983). "The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: EstimatingPolicy Preferenceswith SurveyData."Journalof Politics45: 840-65. Jennings,M. Kent, and RichardG. Niemi (1974). The Political Characterof Adolescence. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. (1978). "The Persistenceof Political Orientations: Over-TimeAnalysisof Two An Generations." BritishJournalof PoliticalScience8: 333-63. Joreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sorbom (1984). LISREL VI: User's Guide. 3rd Edition. Mooresville,IN: ScientificSoftware. Kornberg, Allan,WilliamMishler HaroldD. Clarke(1982).Representative and Democracyin the CanadianProvinces.Scarborough: Prentice-Hall. Lane,Robert E. (1959).PoliticalLife: How and Why People Get Involved in Politics. New York:The Free Press. LeDuc, Lawrence,Jr. (1976)."Measuring Senseof PoliticalEfficacy in Canada:Problems the of Measurement Equivalence." ComparativePoliticalStudies8: 490-500. Long, J. Scott (1983a).ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysis:A Preface to LISREL.Beverly Hills: Sage. (1983b). CovarianceStructureModels:An Introductionto LISREL.Beverly Hills: Sage. and Long,Samuel(1978)."Personality PoliticalAlienation A AmongWhiteand BlackYouth: Test of the Social DeprivationModel."Journalof Politics40: 433-57.

1084

THE JOURNALOF POLITICS,VOL. 47, 1985

Lyons, Schley R. (1970). "The Political Socializationof Ghetto Children:Efficacy and Cynicism." Journalof Politics32: 288-304. Macpherson,C. B. (1977). The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. McPherson, Miller,SusanWelch and Cal Clark (1977)."The Stabilityand Reliabilityof J. PoliticalEfficacy: Using Path Analysisto Test AlternativeModels."AmericanPolitical Science Review 71:509-21. Madsen,Douglas (1978). "A Structural Approachto the Explanationof PoliticalEfficacy Levels Under DemocraticRegimes."AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience22:867-83. Milbrath,Lester, and M.L. Goel (1977). Political Participation.2d ed. Chicago: Rand McNally. Miller,WarrenE., ArthurH. Millerand Edward J. Schneider(1980). AmericanNational ElectionStudiesData Sourcebook, 1952-1978. Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress. Mokken,Robert (1971).A Theoryand Procedureof ScaleAnalysis.The Hague:Mouton. Muller,EdwardN. (1970)."Cross-National Dimensionsof PoliticalCompetence." American PoliticalScience Review 64: 792-809. Rodgers,HarrellR., Jr. (1974)."TowardExplanationof the PoliticalEfficacy and Political Cynicism of Black Adolescents:An ExploratoryStudy."AmericanJournalof Political Science 18:257-82. Seeman,Melvin (1959)."Onthe Meaningof Alienation." AmericanSociologicalReview 24: 783-91. Seligson,MitchellA. (1980)."Trust, Efficacy andModesof PoliticalParticipation: Studyof A Costa RicanPeasants." BritishJournalof PoliticalScience 10:75-98. Shingles,RichardD. (1981)."BlackPoliticalConsciousness and PoliticalParticipation: The MissingLink."AmericanPoliticalScience Review 75: 76-91. Sigelman,Lee, andStanleyFeldman(1983)."Efficacy,Mistrust PoliticalMobilization: and A Cross-National Analysis." Comparative PoliticalStudies16: 118-43. Specht,David A., and RichardD. Warren(1975)."Comparing CausalModels."In David R. Heise (ed.), SociologicalMethodology:1976.San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass. Wright, James D. (1976). The Dissent of the Governed:Alienationand Democracy in America.New York:AcademicPress.