The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sources of bias in outcome assessment in randomised controlled trials: a case study
Open accessAbstract
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be at risk of bias. Using data from a RCT, we considered the impact of post-randomisation bias. We compared the trial primary outcome, which was administered blindly, with the secondary outcome, which was not administered blindly. From 44 schools, 522 children were randomised to receive a one-to-one maths tuition programme that was assessed using 2 outcome measures. The primary outcome measure was assessed blindly whilst the secondary outcome was delivered by the classroom teacher, and therefore this was unblinded. The effect sizes for primary and secondary outcomes were substantially different (0.33 and 1.11, respectively). Test questions that were similar between the 2 tests did not explain the difference. There was greater heterogeneity between schools for the primary outcome, compared with the secondary outcome. We conclude that, in this trial, the difference between the primary and secondary outcomes was likely to have been due to lack of blinding of testers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Blinding teachers to students' conditions reduces the chance that teachers' beliefs about condition effectiveness and knowledge of student assignment will influence their behavior toward the student or their evaluation of student performance.
“Finally, blinding teachers to students' conditions reduces the chance that teachers' beliefs about condition effectiveness and knowledge of student assignment will influence their behavior toward the student or their evaluation of student performance (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 2015;Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Ainsworth et al., 2015
The Background to Every Child Counts evaluation (page not provided) says that teachers’ knowledge of assignment and beliefs about the programme could lead them to award higher marks, supporting the claim about evaluation of performance. The paper addresses bias in outcome assessment, not whether blinding changes teachers’ behavior toward students; it also notes that blinding teachers to allocation is extremely difficult. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the Social Sciences
Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008) · doi:10.1057/9780230583993 · Cited by 366
Self-citationMeasures Inherent to Treatments in Program Effectiveness Reviews
Slavin, R., & Madden, N. A. (2011) · Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19345747.2011.558986 · Cited by 124 · cited 3×
“The test in itself may also form part of the experimental intervention (Slavin & Madden, 2011).”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Arnold C., 2011, Sandwell Early Numeracy Test – Revised (SENT-R)
- 10.1007/s11292-005-3538-2 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199841608.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- Cheung A., 2013, Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 8, 19
- Clause-May T., 2004, Progress in Mathematics 6
- 10.1080/08098130809478203 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10833-009-9107-0 · DOI
- Edge Hill University, Lancashire County Council, & Every Child Counts., 2008, Numbers Count Handbook 2008 – 2009
- 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01707.x · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139013949 · DOI
- Shadish W. R., 2002, Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalised causal inference
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07816-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/03004270903099918 · DOI
- Torgerson C. J., 2011, Every Child Counts: The independent evaluation executive summary
- Torgerson C. J., 2011, Every Child Counts: The independent evaluation technical report
- 10.1080/14794802.2013.797746 · DOI
- 10.1111/1467-8527.t01-2-00223 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Macnamara, B. N., & Burgoyne, A. P. (2023) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000352 · Cited by 415
Metadata
- Authors
- Ainsworth, H., Hewitt, C. E., Higgins, S., Wiggins, A., Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Durham University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Torgerson, Carole J.
- Venue
- Educational Research and Evaluation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-11-24
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-14
- ISSN
- 1380-3611 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-4187
- OpenAlex
- W2070009718
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Educational Research and Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Education Endowment Foundation
- Durham University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- trial bias, unblinding, one-on-one tutoring, effect size heterogeneity, school-based intervention, children
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
