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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Malouff, John M, Thorsteinsson, Einar B·2016·Australian Journal of Education
DOI 10.1177/0004944116664618
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 10.3102/00028312022002175 · DOI
  2. Belsey, C. (1988). Marking by numbers. AUT women , No. 15 (pp. 1–2). London, UK: Association of University Teachers.
  3. Borenstein M., 2005, Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2
  4. *Gerritson, M. (2013). Rubrics as a mitigating instrument for bias in the grading of student writing (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
  5. Haeran J., 2010, College Teaching, 57, 51
  6. *King J. L., 1998, Educational Research Quarterly, 22, 13
  7. Warren Piper D., 1996, Examination practices and procedures in Australian universities

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 222

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Malouff, J. M., & Thorsteinsson, E. B.
Affiliations
University of New England (AU)
Corresponding author
Malouff, John M
ORCID
Venue
Australian Journal of Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-09-21
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
245-256
ISSN
  • 0004-9441 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-5884
DOI
10.1177/0004944116664618
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
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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