Ahlin, Eileen M. and Lobo Antunes, Maria João 2017. Levels of Guardianship in Protecting Youth Against Exposure to Violence in the Community. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 62.
Akhtaruzzaman, Muhammad Hajzler, Christopher and Owen, P. Dorian 2017. Does institutional quality resolve the Lucas Paradox?. Applied Economics, p. 1.
Droste, Nils Lima, Guilherme Rodrigues May, Peter Herman and Ring, Irene 2017. Municipal Responses to Ecological Fiscal Transfers in Brazil: A microeconometric panel data approach. Environmental Policy and Governance,
Henzi, S. P. Hetem, R. Fuller, A. Maloney, S. Young, C. Mitchell, D. Barrett, L. and McFarland, R. 2017. Consequences of sex-specific sociability for thermoregulation in male vervet monkeys during winter. Journal of Zoology,
Johnston, Robert J. and Abdulrahman, Abdulallah S. 2017. Systematic non-response in discrete choice experiments: implications for the valuation of climate risk reductions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, p. 1.
Kobarg, Sebastian Wollersheim, Jutta Welpe, Isabell M. and Spörrle, Matthias 2017. Individual Ambidexterity and Performance in the Public Sector: A Multilevel Analysis. International Public Management Journal, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, p. 226.
Mitchell, Ojmarrh Cochran, Joshua C. Mears, Daniel P. and Bales, William D. 2017. Examining Prison Effects on Recidivism: A Regression Discontinuity Approach. Justice Quarterly, Vol. 34, Issue. 4, p. 571.
Narain, Kimberly Bitler, Marianne Ponce, Ninez Kominski, Gerald and Ettner, Susan 2017. The impact of welfare reform on the health insurance coverage, utilization and health of low education single mothers. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 180, p. 28.
Young, Christopher McFarland, Richard Barrett, Louise and Henzi, S. Peter 2017. Formidable females and the power trajectories of socially integrated male vervet monkeys. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 125, p. 61.
Bell, Mark S. 2016. Examining Explanations for Nuclear Proliferation. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue. 3, p. 520.
Brown, Richard S. 2016. Lobbying, political connectedness and financial performance in the air transportation industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 54, p. 61.
Chilton, Adam S. 2016. The political motivations of the United States’ bilateral investment treaty program. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 23, Issue. 4, p. 614.
Dutta, Sunasir 2016. Creating in the Crucibles of Nature’s Fury. Administrative Science Quarterly, p. 000183921666817.
Guidi, Mattia 2016. Competition Policy Enforcement in EU Member States.
Harris, John A. Swenson, Carolyn W. Uppal, Shitanshu Kamdar, Neil Mahnert, Nichole As-Sanie, Sawsan and Morgan, Daniel M. 2016. Practice patterns and postoperative complications before and after US Food and Drug Administration safety communication on power morcellation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 214, Issue. 1, p. 98.e1.
Jaeger, Jillian 2016. Securing Communities or Profits? The Effect of Federal-Local Partnerships on Immigration Enforcement. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, Vol. 16, Issue. 3, p. 362.
Jäger, Kai 2016. The Role of Regime Type in the Political Economy of Foreign Reserve Accumulation. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 44, p. 79.
Josephs, Nathan Bonnell, Tyler Dostie, Marcus Barrett, Louise and Henzi, S. Peter 2016. Working the crowd: sociable vervets benefit by reducing exposure to risk. Behavioral Ecology, Vol. 27, Issue. 4, p. 988.
Rao, Tara J. and Province, Michael A. 2016. A Framework for Interpreting Type I Error Rates from a Product-Term Model of Interaction Applied to Quantitative Traits. Genetic Epidemiology, Vol. 40, Issue. 2, p. 144.
Renshon, Jonathan 2016. Status Deficits and War. International Organization, Vol. 70, Issue. 03, p. 513.
“Robust standard errors” are used in a vast array of scholarship to correct standard errors for model misspecification. However, when misspecification is bad enough to make classical and robust standard errors diverge, assuming that it is nevertheless not so bad as to bias everything else requires considerable optimism. And even if the optimism is warranted, settling for a misspecified model, with or without robust standard errors, will still bias estimators of all but a few quantities of interest. The resulting cavernous gap between theory and practice suggests that considerable gains in applied statistics may be possible. We seek to help researchers realize these gains via a more productive way to understand and use robust standard errors; a new general and easier-to-use “generalized information matrix test” statistic that can formally assess misspecification (based on differences between robust and classical variance estimates); and practical illustrations via simulations and real examples from published research. How robust standard errors are used needs to change, but instead of jettisoning this popular tool we show how to use it to provide effective clues about model misspecification, likely biases, and a guide to considerably more reliable, and defensible, inferences. Accompanying this article is software that implements the methods we describe.
Authors' Note: Our thanks to Neal Beck, Tim Büthe, Andrew Hall, Helen Milner, Eric Neumayer, Rich Nielsen, Brandon Stewart, and Megan Westrum for many helpful comments, and David Zhang for expert research assistance. All data and information necessary to replicate our work are available in a Dataverse replication file at King and Roberts (2014).
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th January 2017 - 23rd July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.