Skip to main content

Table 2 Scoring criteria for subjective assessment of susceptibility to bias

From: Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

Assessment criteria

0

1

2

Clarity of methods

All sample sizes provided, selection method described, questionnaire design fully disclosed

Some information regarding sample size, selection method, or questionnaire design provided

Sample size not given in full, sample selection not stated, questionnaire design not discussed

Experimental design

Good sample size, appropriate sampling regime, control and intervention well matched, survey appropriately implemented

Low effective sample size, poorly randomised design, control and intervention choice not ideal

Very small sample size, pseudoreplication, non-random sample selection, control and intervention poorly matched/low consistency in sampling over time

Appropriateness of analysis

Confounding variables accounted for, appropriate metrics reported

Confounders only partly accounted for/only some low risk confounders ignored

Significant confounding variables unaccounted for, inappropriate metrics reported, incorrect statistical analysis

Implementation bias

No identifiable bias reported/evident

Low level bias present but ignored/strong bias accounted for

Strong bias present and unaccounted for