Magnitude and moderators of bias in observer ratings: A meta-analysis

被引:127
|
作者
Hoyt, WT
Kerns, MD
机构
[1] Iowa State Univ, Dept Psychol, Ames, IA 50011 USA
[2] Iowa State Univ, Dept Human Dev & Family Studies, Ames, IA 50011 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1037/1082-989X.4.4.403
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Bias in observer ratings compromises generalizability of measurement, typically resulting in attenuation of observed associations between variables. This quantitative review of 79 generalizability studies including raters as a facet examines bias in observer ratings in published psychological research and identifies properties of rating systems likely to place them at risk for problems with rater bias. For the rating systems studied, an average of 37% of score variance was attributable to 2 types of rater bias: (a) raters' differential interpretations of the rating scale and (b) their differential evaluations of the same targets. Ratings of explicit attributes (e.g., frequency counts) contained negligible bias variance, whereas ratings of attributes requiring rater inference contained substantial bias variance. Rater training ameliorated but did not solve the problem of bias in inferential rating scales.
引用
收藏
页码:403 / 424
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A meta-analysis of sudden gains in psychotherapy: Outcome and moderators
    Shalom, Jonathan G.
    Aderka, Idan M.
    [J]. CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2020, 76
  • [22] A META-ANALYSIS OF THE MAGNITUDE OF BIASED ATTENTION IN DEPRESSION
    Peckham, Andrew D.
    McHugh, R. Kathryn
    Otto, Michael W.
    [J]. DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY, 2010, 27 (12) : 1135 - 1142
  • [23] The debate on the earthquake magnitude correlations: a meta-analysis
    Petrillo, Giuseppe
    Zhuang, Jiancang
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2022, 12 (01)
  • [24] The magnitude of nocebo effects in pain: A meta-analysis
    Petersen, Gitte Laue
    Finnerup, Nanna Brix
    Colloca, Luana
    Amanzio, Martina
    Price, Donald D.
    Jensen, Troels Staehelin
    Vase, Lene
    [J]. PAIN, 2014, 155 (08) : 1426 - 1434
  • [25] The debate on the earthquake magnitude correlations: a meta-analysis
    Giuseppe Petrillo
    Jiancang Zhuang
    [J]. Scientific Reports, 12
  • [26] Meta-analysis, overviews and publication bias
    Solomon, P
    Hutton, J
    [J]. STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2001, 10 (04) : 245 - 250
  • [27] Bias, heterogeneity, and uncertainty in meta-analysis
    Howard, James P.
    Arnold, Ahran D.
    Ahmad, Yousif
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2020, 41 (28) : 2712 - 2712
  • [28] Meta-analysis and bias in research reviews
    Gillett, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE AND INFANT PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 19 (04) : 287 - 294
  • [29] Important bias in the Astragalus meta-analysis
    Firenzuoli, Fabio
    Gori, Luigi
    Di Simone, Luisa
    Morsuillo, Maria
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2006, 24 (19) : 3215 - 3216
  • [30] A modified test for bias in meta-analysis
    Harbord, RM
    Sterne, JAC
    Egger, M
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 2003, 24 : 130S - 130S