Inter-rater and test–retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle–Ottawa Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Quality assessment of included studies is an important component of systematic reviews. OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated inter-rater and test-retest reliability for quality assessments conducted by inexperienced student raters. DESIGN: Student raters received a training session on quality assessment using the Jadad Scale for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Raters were randomly assigned into five pairs and they each independently rated the quality of 13-20 articles. These articles were drawn from a pool of 78 papers examining cognitive impairment following electroconvulsive therapy to treat major depressive disorder. The articles were randomly distributed to the raters. Two months later, each rater re-assessed the quality of half of their assigned articles. SETTING: McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study Program. PARTICIPANTS: 10 students taking McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study Program courses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors measured inter-rater reliability using κ and the intraclass correlation coefficient type 2,1 or ICC(2,1). The authors measured test-retest reliability using ICC(2,1). RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability varied by scale question. For the six-item Jadad Scale, question-specific κs ranged from 0.13 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.37) to 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.83). The ranges were -0.14 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.00) to 0.39 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.81) for the NOS cohort and -0.20 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.09) to 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00) for the NOS case-control. For overall scores on the six-item Jadad Scale, ICC(2,1)s for inter-rater and test-retest reliability (accounting for systematic differences between raters) were 0.32 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.52) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67), respectively. Corresponding ICC(2,1)s for the NOS cohort were -0.19 (95% CI -0.67 to 0.35) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.83), and for the NOS case-control, the ICC(2,1)s were 0.46 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater reliability was generally poor to fair and test-retest reliability was fair to excellent. A pilot rating phase following rater training may be one way to improve agreement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.469 | 0.633 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".