# kaal:claim:2447306-008

**Claim.** Further randomization of the sample was not available as a remedy, because respondents drawn from outside the private fund adviser population would never have been exposed to the new disclosure requirements and so could say nothing about them.

**Type.** condition  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- surveys measuring the experience of complying with a new disclosure regime

**Source quote.**

> It would not have been feasible to further randomize the sample by including respondents from outside of the private fund industry or respondents other than private fund advisers because those non-adviser respondents would not have been exposed to the new disclosure requirements.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act* (2014), III. Methodology, 3. Selection Bias, page 12

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Private Fund Disclosures Under the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2447306

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `0c950d73240845e78faf1c3ca0ab820fcc50556faf7ff07f7f773d0876f0be8a` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202014%20-%20Private%20Fund%20Disclosures%20Under%20the%20Dodd-Frank%20Act.pdf

**Topics.** empirical-evidence, private-funds, research-methods

**Keywords.** selection-bias, randomization, survey-design, private-fund-advisers, empirical-methods

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.