Valuation judgement bias has been a research topic for several years due to its proclaimed effect on valuation accuracy. However, little is known on the emphasis of literature on judgement bias, with regard to, for instance, research methodologies, research context and robustness of research evidence. A synthesis of available research will establish consistency in the current knowledge base on valuer judgement, identify future research opportunities and support decision-making policy by educational and regulatory stakeholders how to cope with judgement bias. This article therefore, provides a systematic review of empirical research on real estate valuer judgement over the last 30 years. Based on a number of inclusion and exclusion criteria, we have systematically analysed 32 relevant papers on valuation judgement bias. Although we find some consistency in evidence, we also find the underlying research to be biased; the methodology adopted is dominated by a quantitative approach; research context is skewed by timing and origination; and research evidence seems fragmented and needs replication. In order to obtain a deeper understanding of valuation judgement processes and thus extend the current knowledge base, we advocate more use of qualitative research methods and scholars to adopt an interpretative paradigm when studying judgement behaviour.
DOCUMENT
Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.
DOCUMENT
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20250619194946164936.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
This thesis provides an examination of judgement autonomy of Dutch commercial real estate valuers in relation to client orientation. The valuation of commercial real estate such as offices or retail properties requires in-depth analysis due to its uniqueness by location, building type and usage details. Essentially, a register-valuer is qualified and instructed to assess a property value to one’s best cognitive effort and inform others of this outcome by means of a valuation report. In the Netherlands, concerns over independence risks and client-related judgement risks of valuers have been raised by regulative authorities as the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) and the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM). A significant part of these concerns followed the 2008 financial crisis, which appeared to be at least partially driven by unreliable and incomparable valuations of Dutch commercial real estate (AFM, 2014; DNB, 2012; 2015). Among other things, these concerns led to the instigation of the Nederlands Register Vastgoed Taxateurs (NRVT) in 2015. NRVT is a new Dutch central register of valuation practitioners set up in order to improve self-regulation, quality control and compliance of valuation practitioners. Currently, the chamber for commercial real estate valuation holds about 2,000 commercial valuation registrations (NRVT, 2020). The introduction of NRVT, and other measures taken, reflect an instrumental view towards enhancing professionalism of Dutch valuers. This view is based on a systematic orientation to professional conduct in which good practice is primarily objectively determined (Van Ewijk, 2019). However, Wassink and Bakker (2016) point out that individuals make personal choices in order to deal with work complexity. Insight into and reflection on individual choices is part of what is referred to as normative aspects of professionalisation: what norms prevail in individual judgement and decision-making and why (Van Ewijk, 2019). In this regard, insight into judgement reasoning of valuation practitioners may contribute to normative levels of professional development of valuers. The need for such is expressed through community concerns over how individual judgement autonomy may become subdued due to instrumental-driven developments taking place in the sector. The combination of authoritative concerns over professional quality in the Netherlands and lack of (scientific) insight on how client influence affects judgement in valuation practice poses a problem: How may practitioners address client-related judgement bias risks and improve valuation accuracy from this viewpoint, if little is known on how such risks may occur in daily practice? The seemingly scarce scientific insights available in this regard in the Netherlands may also prevent educational programs to adequately address valuer independence and objectivity risks in relevant training programs. In order to address this knowledge gap, the present PhD research examines the following research problem: 169 Summary “How does client orientation affect professional judgement autonomy of commercial real estate valuers in the Netherlands?” The term ‘client orientation’ should be broadly interpreted and may refer to valuers’ perception, understanding and meaning given to alleged, actual or anticipated client-related aspects. Information on such client aspects is not required for the performance of valuation instructions. It should also be noted that this research examines the context of how client orientation may affect valuer judgement reasoning patterns during work practice, yet not its effect in terms of decision on final value opinion.
MULTIFILE
