The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Addressing endogeneity in operations management research: Recent developments, common problems, and directions for future research
Open accessAbstract
Addressing endogeneity can be a challenging task given the different sources of endogeneity and their impacts on empirical results. While premier business journals typically expect authors to rigorously address endogeneity, this expectation is relatively new to many Operations Management (OM) scholars, as exemplified by a recent editorial in Journal of Operations Management that calls for more rigorous treatment for endogeneity. This study serves two purposes. First, we summarize recent OM literature with respect to the treatment for endogeneity by reviewing studies published in leading OM journals between 2012 and 2017. The review provides evidence that endogeneity problems have received increasing attention from OM scholars. However, we also find some common problems that may render the chosen techniques for addressing endogeneity less effective and potentially lead to biased analysis results. Second, since instrumental variable regression is the most prevalent technique for dealing with endogeneity in the OM literature according to our review, we provide an empirical illustration tailored to OM researchers for using instrumental variable regression in the post‐design (data analysis) phase. Using variables from a publicly available healthcare dataset, our analysis sheds light on the importance of examining instruments' quality and triangulating results based on more than one test/estimator.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811241 · Cited by 8,092
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1994) · doi:10.3386/t0151 · Cited by 5,302
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291055 · Cited by 1,018
McNeish, D., & Kelley, K. (2019) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000182 · Cited by 336
Cited by
Chuang, H. H., Oliva, R., & Heim, G. R. (2019) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.13055 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Lu, G., Ding, X. (., Peng, D. X., & Hao‐Chun Chuang, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Operations Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-10-26
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-64
- ISSN
- 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-1317
- OpenAlex
- W2901985463
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 11.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.