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