Cited by 222Student Assessment and FeedbackNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchEducational Technology and Assessment

Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings

Malouff, John M, Thorsteinsson, Einar B·2016·Australian Journal of Education

Abstract

This article provides a meta-analysis of experimental research findings on the existence of bias in subjective grading of student work such as essay writing. Twenty-three analyses, from 20 studies, with a total of 1935 graders, met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. All studies involved graders being exposed to a specific type of information about a student other than the student’s performance on a task. The hypothesized biasing characteristics included different race/ethnic backgrounds, education-related deficiencies, physical unattractiveness and poor quality of prior performance. The statistically significant overall between-groups effect size was g = 0.36. Moderator analyses showed no significant difference in effect size related to whether the work graded was from a primary school student or a university student. No one type of biasing characteristic showed a significantly higher effect size than other types. The results suggest that bias can occur in subjective grading when graders are aware of irrelevant information about the students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0004944116664618

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Assessment is indivisible from individual value judgements because assessments are designed and evaluated by humans with complex socio-cultural backgrounds, educational experiences, and intellectual and personal values.

    “Finally, assessment is indivisible from individual value judgements. No matter the structures and processes put in place, assessments are designed and evaluated by humans, with all their complex socio-cultural backgrounds, educational experiences, and intellectual and personal values (Malouff and Thorsteinsson 2016; Ryan and Viete 2009; Leathwood 2005; Stowell 2004).”
  • Identity markers differing from those of academic staff were found to be a significant factor in student attainment outcomes.

    “Indeed, this was found to be a significant factor in student attainment outcomes when identity markers differed from those of academic staff (Malouff and Thorsteinsson 2016).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malouff, J. M., & Thorsteinsson, E. B.
Affiliations
University of New England (AU)
Corresponding author
Malouff, John M
Venue
Australian Journal of Education
Published
2016-09-21
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
245-256
ISSN
  • 0004-9441 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-5884
OpenAlex
W2512722101
Cited by
222
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Education (publishedVersion)
  • EPubDev Repository (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
grading bias, subjective grading, essay writing, student assessment, race and ethnicity, physical attractiveness, prior performance

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