| 000 | 01956nam a22002537a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | ZW-GwMSU | ||
| 005 | 20240726072220.0 | ||
| 008 | 240726b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 022 | _a03031853 | ||
| 040 |
_aMSU _bEnglish _cMSU _erda |
||
| 050 | 0 | 0 | _aHD1401 AGR |
| 100 | 1 |
_aMbatha, C.N. _eauthor |
|
| 245 | 1 | 4 |
_aThe standard error of regressions: _ba note on new evidence of significance misuse/ _ccreated by |
| 264 | 1 |
_aJohannesburg: _bAEASA, _c2010. |
|
| 336 |
_2rdacontent _atext _btxt |
||
| 337 |
_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn |
||
| 338 |
_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc |
||
| 440 |
_aAgricultural Economics Research, Policy and Practice in Southern Africa _vVolume 52, number 1 |
||
| 520 | 3 | _aThere is a body of literature dealing with the improper use of statistical significance within economic analysis. Amongthe problematic usages that have been identified are fundamental misunderstandings about the influence of sample design and size on statistical significance, an excessive focus on statistical significance to the exclusion of economic and policy significance, and a harmful conflation of these two very different types of significance. An analysis of 51 agricultural economics papers reviewed and presented at an African conference in 2010 finds improper usage of statistical significance that is comparable or worse in nature and extent to that found in a previous meta analysis focusing on published articles in the American Economic Review in the 1980s and 1990s: well over half of the papers employed what is termed “sign” and “asterisks” econometrics. Overall, the findings underline the need for clearly stated and consistent analytical methods in producing papers as well as for careful review and selection of papers that employ regression analysis. | |
| 650 |
_aSignificance _vCoefficients _xSizes _xSigns |
||
| 700 | 1 |
_aGustafsson, M.A. _eco author |
|
| 856 | _uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2013.778463 | ||
| 942 |
_2lcc _cJA |
||
| 999 |
_c166241 _d166241 |
||