The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Validation
Open accessAbstract
A common heuristic for evaluating robustness of results to omitted variable bias is to look at coefficient movements after inclusion of controls.This heuristic is informative only if selection on observables is proportional to selection on unobservables.I formalize this link, drawing on theory in Altonji, Elder and Taber (2005) and show how, with this assumption, coefficient movements, along with movements in R-squared values, can be used to calculate omitted variable bias.I discuss empirical implementation and describe a formal bounding argument to replace the coefficient movement heuristic.I show two validation exercises suggesting that this bounding argument would perform well empirically.I discuss application of this procedure to a large set of publications in economics, and use evidence from randomized studies to draw guidelines as to appropriate bounding values.
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
Bustos, P. (2011) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.1.304 · Cited by 1,552
Americans Do IT Better: US Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle
Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Reenen, J. V. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.1.167 · Cited by 1,028
Pre-Colonial Ethnic Institutions and Contemporary African Development
(2013) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta9613 · Cited by 953
How does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return to Work? Evidence from Two Natural Experiments*
Lalive, R., & Zweimüller, J. (2009) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1363 · Cited by 582
Active and Passive Waste in Government Spending: Evidence from a Policy Experiment
Bandiera, O., Prat, A., & Valletti, T. (2009) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.99.4.1278 · Cited by 534
Systematic review of effects of low–moderate prenatal alcohol exposure on pregnancy outcome
Henderson, J., Gray, R., & Brocklehurst, P. (2007) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01163.x · Cited by 461
Information and Employee Evaluation: Evidence from a Randomized Intervention in Public Schools
Rockoff, J. E., Staiger, D. O., Kane, T. J., & Taylor, E. S. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.7.3184 · Cited by 138
Cited by
Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias
Cinelli, C., & Hazlett, C. (2020) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/rssb.12348 · Cited by 1,088
Online Course-taking and Student Outcomes in California Community Colleges
Hart, C. M. D., Friedmann, E., & Hill, M. (2018) · Education Finance and Policy · doi:10.1162/edfp_a_00218 · Cited by 136
The relation between cesarean birth and child cognitive development
Polidano, C., Zhu, A., & Bornstein, J. C. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-10831-y · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- Oster, E.
- Venue
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Publisher
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Published
- 2013-05
- OpenAlex
- W1481927355
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 7
- Type
- report
- 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: Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3386/w19054
- The paper
- Oster, E. (2013). Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Validation. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19054
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.
