ASSESSMENT 2: REPORT —
FORMALLY ASSESSING THE
QUALITY OF A SINGLE STUDY
Due: End of Week 4, Sunday 11.59 pm
Weighting: 35%
Word Count: N/A, although no one comment in the form should exceed 400 words. The
current word count in the sample answer is 1,500.
The word count does not include text already in the form.
Purpose
This report will require you to assess the quality of an intervention trial based on formal
Cochrane criteria in Module 2. The criteria are available to any researcher evaluating trials
with a control group as part of an evidence synthesis. The Cochrane criteria are the quality
assessment standard of choice across the health sciences, so familiarity with the criteria will
enable you to become a more discerning consumer of reviews across a number of fields. You
will draw conclusions about the quality of various features (‘domains’) of the study’s
methodology, as specified in the criteria.
Your Task
Scenario
Working for an NGO promoting workplace diversity, you are collaborating with a university on
a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of workplace interventions to promote
gender equality. The systematic review is up to the quality assessment stage, and you are one
Page 2 of 8
of two assessors. Your research team is using the Cochrane standards, and you need to use
the standards for cluster-randomised controlled trials to assess the following trial:
Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Baier Manwell, L., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., Ford, C. E.,
Forscher, P., Isaac, C., Kaatz, A., Magua, W., Palta, M., & Sheridan, J. (2015). The effect
of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a
cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine, 90, 221–230.
Links to these journal articles in the course reading list are available through the MyUni
information page for this assessment.
Requirements
The assessment task is to complete an assessor form (available in MyUni) addressing the
following domains, and justifying a judgement of risk of bias in each.
• Domain 1a: Risk of bias arising from the randomisation process
• Domain 1b: Risk of bias arising from the timing of identification or recruitment of
participants in a cluster-randomised trial
• Domain 2: Risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions (effect of
assignment to intervention)
• Domain 3: Risk of bias due to missing outcome data
• Domain 4: Risk of bias in measurement of the outcome
• Domain 5: Risk of bias in selection of the reported result
• Overall risk of bias
You should refer to the relevant pages in Module 2 to assist you in your answers. A sample
answer for a different cluster-randomised controlled trial is introduced in the module.
Note: You do not need to complete the sections of the assessor form that have a diagonal
line through them.
The resources you need to interpret the signaling questions relating to each domain are
described in Module 2. Links to these resources are available through the MyUni information
page for this assessment.
Outcomes
This Task addresses the following Course Learning Outcomes and graduate attributes.
Page 3 of 8

Course Learning Outcomes	Graduate Attributes
• Explain different approaches to summarising, evaluating and publishing psychological evidence	• Deep discipline knowledge and intellectual breadth • Self-awareness and emotional intelligence

Requirements
• Submit a completed assessor form through MyUni/Canvas, providing comments and
categorical assessment (Risk of bias: ‘low’, ‘high’, or ‘some concerns’) for each applicable
signalling question and overall
• A word count is not specified, but markers will not read beyond 400 words for any one
comment.
• You must submit your assessment using the relevant portal in MyUni/Canvas.
• Consult the assessment rubric when preparing your submission.
• Questions can be posted to the relevant assessment Discussion Board.
References—a reference list is not needed, but any references cited should be cited using
APA 7 format in text and in a reference list added to the last page of the form.
Referencing Style—the referencing style for the GDPA is APA 7 referencing style.
Grading Criteria
This assessment is worth 35% of your overall grade. Refer to the attached rubric for detailed
information on the grading criteria for this assessment.
Page 4 of 8
Rubric: Assessment 2

Rubric Title: Report – Formally Assessing the Quality of a Single Study
Criteria	Ratings	Points
Domain 1a: Interpretation and integration of supporting documents	Points: 3.0 Name: Full points You interpret all signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation—the crib sheet(s) and guidance document(s).	Points: 2.0 Name: Partial points You interpret the majority (more than half) of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	Points: 1.0 Name: Partial points You interpret only a minority of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	Points: 0.0 Name: No points You do not interpret any of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	3.0 pts
Domain 1a: Argument and referencing of examples	Points: 3.0 Name: Full points You use examples from the article to develop a clear argument justifying your choice of response option for each signalling question.	Points: 2.0 Name: Partial points You justify your response options for all signalling questions, but, for a few questions, your argument is hard to follow—possibly, due to the absence of references to specific parts of the article.	Points: 1.0 Name: Partial points You justify your response options for all signalling questions, but, for most questions, your argument is hard to follow.	Points: 0.0 Name: No points Your justification of response option is unclear for all signalling questions.	3.0 pts

Page 5 of 8

Domain 1a: ‘Risk of bias‘ judgement and response options	Points: 1.0 Name: Full points You correctly apply the algorithm for this domain to arrive at a domain-level ‘risk of bias’ judgement. You specify all response options in the rightmost column.	Points: 0 Name: No points You make an error in applying domain-level algorithm and some response options in the rightmost column are missing.	1.0 pts
Domain 1b: Interpretation and integration of supporting documents	Points: 3.0 Name: Full points You interpret all signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation—the crib sheet(s) and guidance document(s).	Points: 2.0 Name: Partial points You interpret the majority (more than half) of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	Points: 1.0 Name: Partial points You interpret only a minority of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	Points: 0.0 Name: No points You do not interpret any of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	3.0 pts
Domain 1b: Argument and referencing of examples	Points: 3.0 Name: Full points You use examples from the article to develop a clear argument justifying your choice of response	Points: 2.0 Name: Partial points You justify your response options for all signalling questions, but, for a few questions, your argument is hard to follow—possibly, due to the absence of	Points: 1.0 Name: Partial points You justify your response options for all signalling questions, but, for most questions, your argument is hard to follow.	Points: 0.0 Name: No points Your justification of response option is unclear for all signalling questions.	3.0 pts

Page 6 of 8

option for each signalling question.	references to specific parts of the article.
Domain 1b: ‘Risk of bias‘ judgement and response options	Points: 1.0 Name: Full points You correctly apply the algorithm for this domain to arrive at a domain-level ‘risk of bias’ judgement. You specify all response options in the rightmost column. You also apply skip logic correctly, marking some questions as NA if that is required given the answer to the preceding question(s).	Points: 0 Name: No points You make an error in applying domain-level algorithm (possibly due to incorrect skip logic), and some response options in the rightmost column are missing.	1.0 pts
Domain 2: Interpretation and integration of supporting documents	Points: 3.0 Name: Full points You interpret all signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation—the crib sheet(s) and guidance document(s).	Points: 2.0 Name: Partial points You interpret the majority (more than half) of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	Points: 1.0 Name: Partial points You interpret only a minority of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	Points: 0.0 Name: No points You do not interpret any of the signalling questions in line with the relevant supporting documentation.	3.0 pts

Page 7 of 8

Domain 2: Argument and referencing of examples	Points: 3.0 Name: Full points You use examples from the article to develop a clear argument justifying your choice of response option for each signalling question.	Points: 2.0 Name: Partial points You justify your response options for all signalling questions, but, for a few questions, your argument is hard to follow—possibly, due to the absence of references to specific parts of the article.	Points: 1.0 Name: Partial points You justify your response options for all signalling questions, but, for most questions, your argument is hard to follow.	Points: 0.0 Name: No points Your justification of response option is unclear for all signalling questions.	3.0 pts
Domain 2: ‘Risk of bias‘ judgement and response options	Points: 1.0 Name: Full points You correctly apply the algorithm for this domain to arrive at a domain-level ‘risk of bias’ judgement. You specify all response options in the rightmost column. You also apply skip logic correctly, marking some questions as NA if that is required given the answer to the preceding question(s).	Points: 0 Name: No points You make an error in applying domain-level algorithm (possibly due to incorrect skip logic), and some response options in the rightmost column are missing.	1.0 pts

Page 8 of 8

Repeat Domain 2 for Domains 3 and 4, and Domain 1a for Domain 5 In the end: 6 domains, each x 7 points = 42 points
Overall ‘risk of bias‘ judgement	Points: 2.0 Name: Full points Your judgement for overall ‘risk of bias’ follows from the domain-level judgements in line with the rules in the crib sheet or guidance document for cluster-randomised controlled trials.	Points: 0 Name: No points Your judgement for overall ‘risk of bias’ does not follow from the domain-level judgements.	1.0 pts
Total	43 pts