Cited by 96Business Strategies and Management ResearchAccounting and Organizational ManagementSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

A manipulationist view of causality in cross-sectional survey research

Van der Stede, Wim A.·2014·Accounting Organizations and Society

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aos.2013.12.001

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van der Stede, W. A.
Venue
Accounting Organizations and Society
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
39
Issue
7
Pages
567-574
ISSN
0361-3682 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3125732662
Cited by
95
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Accounting Organizations and Society (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Accounting and Organizational Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
causal inference, cross-sectional survey, management accounting research, correlation versus causation, theoretical coherence, internal validity, control variables, alternative explanations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review