Affiliation:
1. Marriott School of Business, Brigham Young University , Provo , Utah, USA
Abstract
Abstract
Persistent and difficult methodological issues, such as those highlighted in Ohlson J. (2022. Empirical accounting seminars: Elephants in the room. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A convivium, forthcoming), undermine confidence in the results of empirical studies. Many of these issues relate to the efforts of researchers to defend the statistical significance of their results. However, the seemingly endless combination of methodologies that can be employed make statistical significance a somewhat illusory concept. A more productive approach would be to place greater emphasis on the economic significance of empirical results.
Subject
Law,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Accounting
Reference17 articles.
1. Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & Blake, McS. (2019). Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567, 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9
2. Arrow, K. (1960). Decision theory and the choice of a level of significance for the t-test. In I. Olkin, S.G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffing, W.G. Madow, & H.B. Mann (Eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 70–78). Stanford University Press.
3. Berchicci, L., & King, A. (2022). Corporate sustainability: A model uncertainty analysis of materiality. Journal of Financial Reporting, 7, 43–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/jfr-2021-022
4. Brodeur, A., Cook, N., & Anthony, H. (2020). A proposed specification check for p-hacking. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 110, 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20201078
5. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997