Risk of bias among included studies was mixed, with Newcastle–Ottawa ratings ranging from 3 to 9 and high inter-rater agreement¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Methodological quality of included studies was mixed: Newcastle–Ottawa risk of bias ratings ranged from 3 to 9 (M = 6.92, SD = 1.43), with studies scoring 0–6 coded high risk and 7–9 low risk. → Steven J. Howard 2024
Evidence¶
Steven J. Howard 2024¶
Steven J. Howard, Kate L. Lewis, Emma Walter, Irina Verenikina, & Lisa K. Kervin. (2024). Measuring the Quality of Adult–Child Interactions in the Context of ECEC: a Systematic Review on the Relationship with Developmental and Educational Outcomes. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09832-3
q3 · i? · review · r3
Results overview of the 90 included studies assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa scale across sample selection, comparability and outcome domains; inter-rater correlation between two researchers' assessments was high, r = 0.90.
"Methodologi- cal quality of the included samples was mixed, with risk of bias ratings ranging from 3 to 9 (M = 6.92, SD = 1.43)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Three independent expert instructors reached exceptionally high inter-rater reliability when grading 1200 bash exam responses, establishing a reliable human reference standard
- Inter-annotator agreement was moderate (combined mean Fleiss's κ of 0.62 across 23 groups), yet most students reported having reached consensus
- Inter-rater agreement among the 20 expert teachers was low, at or below chance across QM criteria
- Human inter-rater agreement for FRISCO essay scoring was reliable, with mean kappa 0.78–0.84 and percentage of agreement above 75% in all six dimensions
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
newcastle-ottawa-risk-of-bias-mixed-across-included-studies |
title |
Risk of bias among included studies was mixed, with Newcastle–Ottawa ratings ranging from 3 to 9 and high inter-rater agreement |
description |
Risk of bias among included studies was mixed, with Newcastle–Ottawa ratings ranging from 3 to 9 and high inter-rater agreement |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — steven-j-howard-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.