CONTINUOUS MONITORING STUDY DESIGN The Continuous Monitoring study was intended to capture the dynamics of an election campaign. To understand the impact of a campaign from a voter`s perspective--how perceptions, beliefs and preferences are developed--required the collection of survey evidence as the campaign unfolded. The interview emphasized those elements important to electoral choice most likely to be affected by the campaign and by external events that intrude upon the campaign. Since events which can affect a campaign may take place at any time, it was desirable to be monitoring the electorate on a continuous basis. Hence, Continuous Monitoring began January 11th, 1984. That start date was chosen to give a number of interviews before the stimulus of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries. Monitoring continued past election day, with the last interview taken on December 7th. The study includes 46 small, independent, consecutively administered cross-sections. Each such cross-section sample is designated as a different sample "week". The average sample size is 76 cases. The interviews were taken by telephone. Respondents were selected by random digit dialing. (See Sample Design, below.) WEEKS AND SAMPLES. Because of the difficulty of obtaining an adequate response rate in a short period of time, the sample "week" is actually a 17 day interviewing period. The goal was to take two-thirds of the interviews in the first seven days of interviewing, with a 10 day grace period for picking up the remaining one-third of the interviews. Each sample week began on a Wednesday, a day selected because Tuesdays were Primary days. After 17 full days of interviewing, the sample week ended at midnight on Friday. On Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, interviews were being conducted for three distinct sample weeks: for the sample begun on that Wednesday, for the sample begun on the previous Wednesday and now entering its first week's "grace" period, and the sample begun two full weeks ago, working on its last three days of grace. Variable 104 denotes the sample "week" and this variable should be used when one is interested in comparing the samples as such. There are two other variables which record the actual 7-day week in which the interview was taken. One (variable 113) records the week in which the interview was begun. The other (variable 114) records the calendar week in which the interview was completed. Any difference between these two variables is due to "break-offs9" (See variables 22-29). The user should note that an interview taken in any one of the SAMPLE weeks" could have been taken in one of THREE calendar weeks. VERSIONS AND SAMPLES. The survey instrument was intended to be very much the same from one sample week to the next. At the same time, the design allowed for the addition of new questions as campaign events made necessary, and for deletion of questions no longer relevant as the campaign unfolded. From time to time, it did prove necessary to add and delete questions. For example, the original coverage of Gary Hart was very thin, and a number of questions about him were added immediately after the New Hampshire primary. Similarly, questions about John Glenn were dropped from the survey four weeks after he dropped out of the race. Versions are defined by question additions or deletions. Each time one such change took place, a new version was created. There were eventually THIRTEEN versions, many of them reflecting the addition or deletion of only one or two variables. The INAP codes for each variable clearly indicate for which version(s) the question was asked. (Please see "Questions & Versions," below, for a detailed listing of differences between versions.) PLEASE NOTE that there is not an exact correspondence between version beginning dates and sample weeks. With one notable exception, version changes were made "across the board," i.e., a question was added or dropped for all open sample weeks. Thus, when the thermometer rating for Alan Cranston was dropped (the only difference between versions 2 and 3) this was done not only for Sample Week 12, which opened on the day the new version was implemented, but also for interviews from Weeks 10 and 11 which were still in the field at that time. The switch between Versions 1 & 2 is an exception to this procedure. In this instance, when a set of new questions for Gary Hart were added on the day following the New Hampshire primary, they were added only for Sample Week 8, not the still open Sample Weeks 6 & 7. VERSIONS AND MISSING DATA. In all releases of all NES studies, the codebook and dictionary treat certain code values for most variables as "missing data." Don't know, Not ascertained and Not asked (INAP) codes are almost always treated as missing data. However, the analyst has the responsibility of determining if these missing data assignments are appropriate for his/her research. Missing data code assignments such as INAP should be read carefully before analysis is begun. This is particularly important for the Continuous Monitoring dataset, where the distinction between versions is carried in the INAP codes (as well as a Version variable, see variable 117).