Estimating the extent of selective reporting: An application to economics
Article 2024 en
Authors
SB
Stephan B. Bruns
TD
Teshome Kebede Deressa
TS
T. D. Stanley
Abstract
1 min read
Abstract Using a sample of 70,399 published p ‐values from 192 meta‐analyses, we empirically estimate the counterfactual distribution of p ‐values in the absence of any biases. Comparing observed p ‐values with counterfactually expected p ‐values allows us to estimate how many p ‐values are published as being statistically significant when they should have been published as non‐significant. We estimate the extent of selectively reported p ‐values to range between 57.7% and 71.9% of the significant p ‐values. The counterfactual p ‐value distribution also allows us to assess shifts of p ‐values along the entire distribution of published p ‐values, revealing that particularly very small p ‐values ( p < 0.001) are unexpectedly abundant in the published literature. Subsample analysis suggests that the extent of selective reporting is reduced in research fields that use experimental designs, analyze microeconomics research questions, and have at least some adequately powered studies.
Alexander A. Aarts, Joanna E. Anderson, Christopher Anderson, Peter Raymond Attridge, Angela S. Attwood, Jordan Axt, Molly Babel, Štěpán Bahník, Erica Baranski, Michael Barnett‐Cowan, Elizabeth Bartmess, Jennifer S. Beer, Raoul Bell, Heather Bentley, Leah Beyan, Grace Binion, Denny Borsboom, Annick Bosch, Frank A. Bosco, Sara Bowman, Mark J. Brandt, Erin L Braswell, Hilmar Brohmer, Benjamin T. Brown, Kristina A. Brown, Jovita Brüning, Ann Calhoun-Sauls, Shannon Callahan, Elizabeth Chagnon, Jesse Chandler, Christopher R. Chartier, Felix Cheung, Cody D. Christopherson,
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.