The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Influential Observations and Inference in Accounting Research
Open accessAbstract
Accounting studies often encounter observations with extreme values that can influence coefficient estimates and inferences. Two widely used approaches to address influential observations in accounting studies are winsorization and truncation. While expedient, both depend on researcher-selected cutoffs, applied on a variable-by-variable basis, which, unfortunately, can alter legitimate data points. We compare the efficacy of winsorization, truncation, influence diagnostics (Cook's Distance), and robust regression at identifying influential observations. Replication of three published accounting studies shows that the choice impacts estimates and inferences. Simulation evidence shows that winsorization and truncation are ineffective at identifying influential observations. While influence diagnostics and robust regression both outperform winsorization and truncation, overall, robust regression outperforms the other methods. Since robust regression is a theoretically appealing and easily implementable approach based on a model's residuals, we recommend that future accounting studies consider using robust regression, or at least report sensitivity tests using robust regression. JEL Classifications: C12; C13; C18; C51; C52; M41. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.
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
Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach
Wooldridge, J. M. (1999) · Cited by 14,346
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches
Petersen, M. A. (2009) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhn053 · Cited by 10,746
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725153 · Cited by 7,297 · cited 6×
“For example, some studies noted that they used the Belsley et al. (1980) regression diagnostics, including standardized residuals or Cook’s D to truncate observations with large residuals, but many of these studies do not report the cut-offs employed or provide enough detail regarding the…”
InfluentialRobust estimation of a location parameter
Huber, P. J. (1964) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177703732 · Cited by 7,228
Regression Diagnostics -- Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Beaumont, C. D., Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1981) · The Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/2581267 · Cited by 6,359
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference With Clustered Errors
Cameron, A. C., Gelbach, J. B., & Miller, D. L. (2008) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest.90.3.414 · Cited by 4,417
Kennedy, P. (1979) · Cited by 4,340
Metadata
- Authors
- Leone, A. J., Minutti-Meza, M., & Wasley, C. E.
- Venue
- The Accounting Review
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2016-02-01
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 337-364
- ISSN
- 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7967
- OpenAlex
- W3124211531
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 22.72
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influential Observations and Inference in Accounting Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr-52396
- The paper
- Leone, A. J., Minutti-Meza, M., & Wasley, C. E. (2019). Influential Observations and Inference in Accounting Research. The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52396
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.