Talk:Omitted-variable bias

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Omitted-variable bias article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A discussion regarding the direction and magnitude of the bias would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.98.131 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel like, while accurate, the description on this page isn't helpful. Perhaps a plain english explanation, followed by 'more specifically, blah blah'. Editing accordingly Odoketa (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the "This article may be confusing or unclear to readers" warning[edit]

I was going through the Key Terms and Concepts in Chapter 17 of Econometric Analysis (Greene, 2011) by looking up each term in Wikipedia, and this is the most helpful article among the bunch. Maybe we should get rid of the warning. dbabbitt (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a fine article, the warning should be removed. Ngeorgak (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ashenfelter's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Ashenfelter has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I would say this is a pretty good entry, material for the non-technical reader and the more technical reader. The references to Wooldrige and Greene are standard, but I'm not familiar with the other two.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Ashenfelter has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Ashenfelter, Orley & Greenstone, Michael, 2004. "Estimating the Value of a Statistical Life: The Importance of Omitted Variables and Publication Bias," IZA Discussion Papers 1037, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with Odoketa (talk)[edit]

I think that this article is not very accessible and is also highly focused on the econometric side of things.

Smasongarrison (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an econometric problem, in the end... Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gauss Markov Section Needs Work[edit]

The section on the Gauss Markov isn't quite right, or at least is misleading. Suppose we have Y=a+XB+e as our short regression and Y=a+XD+ZG+n. With an omitted variable, the estimate of the short regression remains consistent. That is, the short regression still reflects the correct expectation E[Y|X] and E[e|X]=0. Its just that the short coefficient B is an inconsistent estimator of the coefficient D in the long regression. Clinton.tepper (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article should have more work done on it. It needs some examples, to begin with. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]