SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2609.26192

Do methods matter in the meta-analysis of partial correlation coefficients?

Abstract

Recent studies have demonstrated that conventional meta-analyses of partial correlation coefficients (PCC) are biased. Several adjustments have been shown in simulations to reduce these small-sample biases to negligibility. While many meta-analyses of partial correlation coefficients are conducted each year across several disciplines, the practical importance of these issues remains unknown. To address this question and to offer advice for applications, we survey 172 economic meta-analyses of PCCs. We find that small-sample biases are negligible in practice. However, some publication selection biases remain. Although Fisher's z transformations have often been recommended, they reduce neither small-sample nor publication selection biases relative to conventional random effects. Both the unrestricted weighted least squares (UWLS) and the Hunter-Schmidt (HS) estimators produce smaller, arguably less biased, estimates of the mean PCC in these applications than either random effects with or without Fisher's z transformations. These findings offer practical guidance for any discipline that meta-analyzes partial correlations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T. D. Stanley, Petr Cala, Hristos Doucouliagos, Zuzana Irsova, Tomas Havranek. 2026-08-10. Do methods matter in the meta-analysis of partial correlation coefficients?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.26192

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Poverty Targeting with Imperfect Information

How should antipoverty programs allocate transfers when household income is known only through noisy predictions? I formulate this as a statistical decision problem in which a policymaker chooses nonnegative transfers within a fixed budget to minimize squared deviations of post-transfer income from the poverty line. I show that the standard plug-in rule, which treats predictions as exact, is inadmissible. I then develop a nonparametric empirical Bayes allocation rule that replaces the estimated gaps with posterior mean poverty gaps. Its Bayes regret is bounded by the mean squared difference between its posterior mean gaps and the oracle's, so the budget and nonnegativity constraints do not slow its convergence to the oracle. The approach extends, with weaker guarantees, to a planner who cares only about how far households remain below the poverty line after transfers and to programs that pay a fixed set of benefit amounts. In simulations using household surveys from nine African countries, the allocations under the empirical Bayes rule reach about 1.8 times as many poor people as those under plug-in OLS with the same budget and achieve the same average poverty gap reduction with 6.7% less spending.

econ.EM

Estimating Treatment Effects in Panel Data Without Parallel Trends

This paper proposes a novel approach for estimating treatment effects in panel data settings, addressing key limitations of the standard difference-in-differences (DID) approach. The standard approach relies on the parallel trends assumption, implicitly requiring that unobservable factors correlated with treatment assignment be unidimensional, time-invariant, and affect untreated potential outcomes in an additively separable manner. This paper introduces a more flexible framework that allows for multidimensional unobservables and non-additive separability, and provides sufficient conditions for identifying the average treatment effect on the treated. An empirical application to job displacement reveals substantially smaller long-run earnings losses compared to the standard DID approach, demonstrating the framework's ability to account for unobserved heterogeneity that manifests as differential outcome trajectories between treated and control groups.

econ.EM

Single-Network Finite-Sample Inference in Strategic Network Formation Models

We develop a finite-sample valid inference procedure for strategic network formation models with endogenous network statistics, using only a single observed network. We impose no restrictions on network density, equilibrium selection, or the dependence structure induced by strategic interaction. Using a "bounding-by-c" technique, we obtain realization-wise sandwich inequalities whose middle term depends only on exogenous covariates and i.i.d. pairwise shocks. These inequalities deliver pathwise identifying restrictions and simulable finite-sample critical values in both parametric and semiparametric settings. Our proposed procedure is also computationally tractable: it does not involve solving, simulating, or enumerating equilibrium (sub)networks, and easily scales to networks with 10000 agents in simulations. In two empirical applications, we find statistical evidence for positive link interdependence at the 95% confidence level.

econ.EM