Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Qualitative Information in Capital Markets Research: Comparison of Alternative Methodologies to Measure Disclosure Tone

Henry, Elaine, Leone, Andrew J·2016·The Accounting Review

Abstract

This study evaluates alternative measures of the tone of financial narrative. We present evidence that word-frequency tone measures based on domain-specific wordlists—compared to general wordlists—better predict the market reaction to earnings announcements, have greater statistical power in short-window event studies, and exhibit more economically consistent post-announcement drift. Further, inverse document frequency weighting, advocated in Loughran and McDonald (2011), provides little improvement to the alternative approach of equal weighting. We also provide evidence that word-frequency tone measures are as powerful as the Naïve Bayesian machine-learning tone measure from Li (2010) in a regression of future earnings on MD&A tone. Overall, although more complex techniques are potentially advantageous in certain contexts, equal-weighted, domain-specific, word-frequency tone measures are generally just as powerful in the context of financial disclosure and capital markets. Such measures are also more intuitive, easier to implement, and, importantly, far more amenable to replication.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2308/accr-51161

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Henry, E., & Leone, A. J.
Venue
The Accounting Review
Published
2015-05-01
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
153-178
ISSN
  • 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7967
OpenAlex
W1873429512
Cited by
381
References
37
FWCI
69.26
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: Measuring Qualitative Information in Capital Markets Research: Comparison of Alternative Methodologies to Measure Disclosure Tone. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr-51161
The paper
Henry, E., & Leone, A. J. (2016). Measuring Qualitative Information in Capital Markets Research: Comparison of Alternative Methodologies to Measure Disclosure Tone. The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51161

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.