Article Version of Record

The development of a new generic risk-of-bias measure for systematic reviews of surveys

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Nudelman, Gabriel
Otto, Kathleen

Abstract / Description

It is important to evaluate risk of bias of the primary studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Since tools pertinent to surveys are scarce, the goal of the current research was to develop a measure to address this need. In Study 1, an initial list of 10 relevant topics was compiled from previous measures. In Study 2, the list was refined into an eight-item risk-of-bias measure via discussion and a pilot study. In Study 3, experienced researchers used the measure to asses 70 studies, demonstrating high interrater agreement (weighted Kappa = .82). Inexperienced raters also utilized the measure to code 26 different studies included in a prior meta-analysis, which resulted in adequate interrater agreement (weighted Kappa = .64) and excellent convergent validity (r = .66). Thus, the new measure, designed to be accessible and flexible, can increase standardization of risk-of-bias evaluations and contribute to the interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analytic findings.

Keyword(s)

risk of bias systematic review meta-analysis survey quality correlational studies

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2020-12-22

Journal title

Methodology

Volume

16

Issue

4

Page numbers

278–298

Publisher

PsychOpen GOLD

Publication status

publishedVersion

Review status

peerReviewed

Is version of

Citation

Nudelman, G., & Otto, K. (2020). The development of a new generic risk-of-bias measure for systematic reviews of surveys. Methodology, 16(4), 278-298. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.4329
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Nudelman, Gabriel
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Otto, Kathleen
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2022-04-14T11:24:47Z
  • Made available on
    2022-04-14T11:24:47Z
  • Date of first publication
    2020-12-22
  • Abstract / Description
    It is important to evaluate risk of bias of the primary studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Since tools pertinent to surveys are scarce, the goal of the current research was to develop a measure to address this need. In Study 1, an initial list of 10 relevant topics was compiled from previous measures. In Study 2, the list was refined into an eight-item risk-of-bias measure via discussion and a pilot study. In Study 3, experienced researchers used the measure to asses 70 studies, demonstrating high interrater agreement (weighted Kappa = .82). Inexperienced raters also utilized the measure to code 26 different studies included in a prior meta-analysis, which resulted in adequate interrater agreement (weighted Kappa = .64) and excellent convergent validity (r = .66). Thus, the new measure, designed to be accessible and flexible, can increase standardization of risk-of-bias evaluations and contribute to the interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analytic findings.
    en_US
  • Publication status
    publishedVersion
  • Review status
    peerReviewed
  • Citation
    Nudelman, G., & Otto, K. (2020). The development of a new generic risk-of-bias measure for systematic reviews of surveys. Methodology, 16(4), 278-298. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.4329
    en_US
  • ISSN
    1614-2241
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/5699
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.6303
  • Language of content
    eng
  • Publisher
    PsychOpen GOLD
  • Is version of
    https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.4329
  • Is related to
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4415
  • Keyword(s)
    risk of bias
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    systematic review
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    meta-analysis
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    survey quality
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    correlational studies
    en_US
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    The development of a new generic risk-of-bias measure for systematic reviews of surveys
    en_US
  • DRO type
    article
  • Issue
    4
  • Journal title
    Methodology
  • Page numbers
    278–298
  • Volume
    16
  • Visible tag(s)
    Version of Record
    en_US