Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T01:19:13.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Statistical Results in MOR Articles: An Essay on Verifiability and Ways to Enhance It

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Ming Li ,
Barton M. Sharp  and
Donald D. Bergh
Ming Li
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, UK
Barton M. Sharp
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University, USA
Donald D. Bergh
Affiliation:
The University of Denver, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 431 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. 2011. The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43 (3): 666–678.Google Scholar
Bedeian, A. G. 2014. More than meets the eye: A guide to interpreting the descriptive statistics and correlation matrices reported in management research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (1): 121–135.Google Scholar
Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. 2010. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9 (4): 715–725.Google Scholar
Bergh, D., Sharp, B., & Li, M. 2017. Tests for identifying ‘red flags’ in empricial findings: Demonstration and recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16 (1): 110–124.Google Scholar
Bergh, D., Sharp, B., Aguinis, H., & Li., M. in press. Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings, Strategic Organization.Google Scholar
Berle, D., & Starcevic, V. 2007. Inconsistencies between reported test statistics and p-values in two psychiatry journals. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 16 (4): 202–207.Google Scholar
Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. 2016. Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (2): 257–261.Google Scholar
García-Berthou, E., & Alcaraz, C. 2004. Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4 (1): 13.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, B., & King, A. A. 2016. Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests & mistaken inference. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (1): 167–176.Google Scholar
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Levine, S. S. 2012. Walter R. Nord and Ann F. Connell: Rethinking the knowledge controversy in organization studies: A generative uncertainty perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57 (3): 537–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, A. Y., Chiu, C.-Y., Fey, C. F., Levine, S. S., McDermott, G., Murmann, J. P., & Tsang, E. 2016. The critique of empirical social science: New policies at Management and Organization Review . Management and Organization Review, 12 (4): 649–658.Google Scholar
Verification. 2017. Dictionary.com. Available from URL: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/verification?s=t Google Scholar
Zientek, L. R., & Thompson, B. 2009. Matrix summaries improve research reports: Secondary analyses using published literature. Educational Researcher, 38: 343–352.Google Scholar