Measuring Measurement Error

Clicks: 17
ID: 332559
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #23 of 27 articles by views in international review of finance

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract We collect 2,848 instrumental variable (IV) regressions from 391 papers published in top economics and finance journals and show that estimated IV coefficients are often much larger than their OLS counterparts, even when theory suggests they should be smaller. We derive meta-regression estimators that distinguish measurement error bias from omitted variable bias and simultaneity bias; applying our estimators to a set of 1,040 comparable regressions from 139 papers, we find that measurement error shrinks reported coefficients by about two to four times. Measurement error remains quantitatively important even after accounting for weak instruments, publication bias, instrument invalidity, and heterogeneous treatment effects. Our results suggest that measurement error is a severe, pervasive, and understated source of bias in economics and finance.
Reference Key
openalex_W7222633149 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal international review of finance
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/rof/rfag049
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.