实证金融中的显著性检验:批判性回顾与评估

Jae H. Kim, P. Ji
{"title":"实证金融中的显著性检验:批判性回顾与评估","authors":"Jae H. Kim, P. Ji","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2410049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically reviews the practice of significance testing in modern finance research. Employing a survey of recently published articles in four top-tier finance journals, we find that the conventional significance levels are exclusively used with little consideration of the key factors such as the sample size, power of the test, and expected losses. We also find that statistically significant results reported in many surveyed papers become questionable, if Bayesian method or revised standards for evidence were instead used. We observe strong evidence of publication bias in favour of statistical significance. We propose that substantial changes be made to the current practice of significance testing in finance research, in order to improve research credibility and integrity.","PeriodicalId":246130,"journal":{"name":"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"70","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Significance Testing in Empirical Finance: A Critical Review and Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Jae H. Kim, P. Ji\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2410049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper critically reviews the practice of significance testing in modern finance research. Employing a survey of recently published articles in four top-tier finance journals, we find that the conventional significance levels are exclusively used with little consideration of the key factors such as the sample size, power of the test, and expected losses. We also find that statistically significant results reported in many surveyed papers become questionable, if Bayesian method or revised standards for evidence were instead used. We observe strong evidence of publication bias in favour of statistical significance. We propose that substantial changes be made to the current practice of significance testing in finance research, in order to improve research credibility and integrity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":246130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"70\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 70

摘要

本文批判性地回顾了现代金融研究中显著性检验的实践。通过对四家顶级金融期刊最近发表的文章的调查,我们发现传统的显著性水平被专门使用,很少考虑样本量、检验功率和预期损失等关键因素。我们还发现,如果使用贝叶斯方法或修订的证据标准,许多被调查论文中报告的统计显著性结果变得可疑。我们观察到支持统计显著性的出版偏倚的有力证据。我们建议对目前金融研究中显著性检验的实践进行实质性的改变,以提高研究的可信度和完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Significance Testing in Empirical Finance: A Critical Review and Assessment
This paper critically reviews the practice of significance testing in modern finance research. Employing a survey of recently published articles in four top-tier finance journals, we find that the conventional significance levels are exclusively used with little consideration of the key factors such as the sample size, power of the test, and expected losses. We also find that statistically significant results reported in many surveyed papers become questionable, if Bayesian method or revised standards for evidence were instead used. We observe strong evidence of publication bias in favour of statistical significance. We propose that substantial changes be made to the current practice of significance testing in finance research, in order to improve research credibility and integrity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exchange Rates and Unobservable Fundamentals: A New Approach to Out-of-Sample Forecasting Pricing Risks across Currency Denominations Venture Capitalists' Value-Enhancing Activities Under Weak Protection of Law Delegation, Trust and Defaulting in Retirement Savings: Perspectives from Plan Executives and Members Cross Trading by Investment Advisers: Implications for Mutual Fund Performance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1