Falhas Metodológicas das pesquisas empíricas em contabilidade

Some Methodological Deficiencies in Empirical Research Articles in Accounting. Accounting Horizons: September 2014
Resumo:

This paper uses a sample of the regression and behavioral papers published in The Accounting Review and the Journal of Accounting Research from September 2012 through May 2013. We argue first that the current research results reported in empirical regression papers fail adequately to justify the time period adopted for the study. Second, we maintain that the statistical analyses used in these papers as well as in the behavioral papers have produced flawed results. We further maintain that their tests of statistical significance are not appropriate and, more importantly, that these studies do not—and cannot—properly address the economic significance of the work. In other words, significance tests are not tests of the economic meaningfulness of the results. We suggest ways to avoid some but not all of these problems. We also argue that replication studies, which have been essentially abandoned by accounting researchers, can contribute to our search for truth, but few will be forthcoming unless the academic reward system is modified.

Keywords:  research methodology, statistical analysis

Received: September 2013; Accepted: May 2014 ;Published Online: May 2014

Thomas R. Dyckman and Stephen A. Zeff (2014) Some Methodological Deficiencies in Empirical Research Articles in Accounting. Accounting Horizons: September 2014, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 695-712.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/acch-50818

 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324266

Thomas R. Dyckman is a Professor Emeritus at Cornell University and an Adjunct Professor at Florida Gulf Coast University, and Stephen A. Zeff is a Professor at Rice University.

Recomendações dos Autores:

In summary we have endeavored to make the following points:

First, authors must adequately defend their selection of the sample period by convincing the reader that the period is stable itself and in relation to periods in close proximity.

Second, the accounting academy should actively seek and reward replications as an essential element in its aspirations to be a scientific community.

Third, authors should attend to the economic significance as well as the statistical significance of their investigations.

Fourth, authors should respect the limitation of conventional hypothesis tests applied to their data, which implies enhanced caution when declaring results to be statistically significant.

Fifth, authors could consider reporting the use of statistical intervals as a way to mitigate the problems of determining the most likely alternative hypothesis and thereby the appropriate Type ll error.

Sixth, authors need to be sure that, in their “Conclusions” section, they discuss the limitations of their research and how these limitations might be overcome, as well as suggest extensions for future research.
Seventh, authors should consider the use of descriptive statistics and other approaches as a means of, or support for, establishing the validity of their research objective.

Eighth, editors should consider requiring authors of accepted papers to provide a complete description of their methodology, including data collection, accuracy, and verification