Measurement equivalence in replications of experiments: when and why it matters and guidance on how to determine equivalence

Sebastian Jilke, Nicolai Petrovsky, Bart Meuleman and Oliver James

Public Management Review, 2017, vol. 19, issue 9, 1293-1310

Abstract: Replications of experiments are typically conducted to verify initial findings, increase their external validity, or to study the boundary conditions of treatment effects. A crucial and implicitly made assumption is that outcome measures in experiments are sufficiently comparable (i.e., equivalent) across experimental settings. We argue that there are good reasons to believe that this equivalence assumption may not always be met and should therefore be tested empirically. Integrating the literature on experimental replication and survey measurement equivalence, we provide guidance when and how experimental replicators need to determine cross-replication equivalence.

Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210906 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:19:y:2017:i:9:p:1293-1310

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rpxm20

DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1210906

Access Statistics for this article

Public Management Review is currently edited by Stephen P. Osborne

More articles in Public Management Review from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().