Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/129290 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2016
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
MAGKS Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics No. 03-2016
Verlag: 
Philipps-University Marburg, School of Business and Economics, Marburg
Zusammenfassung: 
Many meta-regression analyses that synthesize estimates from primary studies have now been published in economics. Meta-regression models attempt to infer the presence of genuine empirical effects even if the authors of primary studies select statistically significant and theory-confirming estimates for publication. Meta-regression models were originally developed for the synthesis of experimental research where randomization ensures unbiased and consistent estimation of the effect of interest. Most economics research is, however, observational and authors of primary studies can search across different regression specifications for statistically significant and theory-confirming estimates. Each regression specification may possibly suffer from biases such as omitted-variable biases that result in biased and inconsistent estimation of the effect of interest. We show that if the authors of primary studies search for statistically significant and theory-confirming estimates, meta-regression models tend to systematically make false-positive findings of genuine empirical effects. The ubiquity of such search processes for specific results may limit the applicability of meta-regression models in identifying genuine empirical effects in economics.
Schlagwörter: 
meta-regression
meta-analysis
p-hacking
publication bias
omitted-variable bias
sampling variability
sampling error
Monte Carlo simulation
JEL: 
C12
C15
C40
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
932.09 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.