Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/185256 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2018
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 11796
Verlag: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Zusammenfassung: 
The economics 'credibility revolution' has promoted the identification of causal relationships using difference-in-differences (DID), instrumental variables (IV), randomized control trials (RCT) and regression discontinuity design (RDD) methods. The extent to which a reader should trust claims about the statistical significance of results proves very sensitive to method. Applying multiple methods to 13,440 hypothesis tests reported in 25 top economics journals in 2015, we show that selective publication and p-hacking is a substantial problem in research employing DID and (in particular) IV. RCT and RDD are much less problematic. Almost 25% of claims of marginally significant results in IV papers are misleading.
Schlagwörter: 
research methods
causal inference
p-curves
p-hacking
publication bias
JEL: 
A11
B41
C13
C44
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
543.16 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.