The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study
Abstract
Measurement error is ubiquitous in experimental work. It leads to imperfect statistical controls, attenuated estimated effects of elicited behaviors, and biased correlations between characteristics. We develop statistical techniques for handling experimental measurement error. These techniques are applied to data from the Caltech Cohort Study, which conducts repeated incentivized surveys of the Caltech student body. We replicate three classic experiments, demonstrating that results change substantially when measurement error is accounted for. Collectively, these results show that failing to properly account for measurement error may cause a field-wide bias leading scholars to identify “new” phenomena.
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
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Gender Differences in Preferences
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · Cited by 5,694
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367 · Cited by 3,723
Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067 · Cited by 3,186
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355
Performance in competitive environments: gender differences
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/00335530360698496 · Cited by 1,997
Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.2.67 · Cited by 1,391
Cited by
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2023) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4455 · Cited by 477
The empirical relationship between nonstandard economic behaviors
Dean, M., & Ortoleva, P. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1821353116 · Cited by 78
ESG Confusion and Stock Returns: Tackling the Problem of Noise
Berg, F., Kölbel, J., Pavlova, A., & Rigobon, R. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3941514 · Cited by 53
Social-Science Genomics: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions
Benjamin, D., Cesarini, D., Turley, P., & Young, A. S. (2024) · doi:10.3386/w32404 · Cited by 20
Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample
Chapman, J., Snowberg, E., Wang, S. W., & Camerer, C. (2025) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdae093 · Cited by 10
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gillen, B., Snowberg, E., & Yariv, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Political Economy
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1826-1863
- ISSN
- 0022-3808 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-534X
- OpenAlex
- W1568882873
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 64.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/701681
- The paper
- Gillen, B., Snowberg, E., & Yariv, L. (2019). Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study. Journal of Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1086/701681
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.
