diff --git a/.github/workflows/blogdown.yaml b/.github/workflows/blogdown.yaml index 5022f50..a345b26 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/blogdown.yaml +++ b/.github/workflows/blogdown.yaml @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ jobs: - name: Build site run: | - R -e 'blogdown::build_site(build_rmd = TRUE, run_hugo = FALSE)' + # R -e 'blogdown::build_site(build_rmd = TRUE, run_hugo = FALSE)' R -e 'if (!blogdown::hugo_build()==0) { stop("Hugo build failed.") }' - name: Deploy to Netlify diff --git a/content/blog/2023-05-11-assessing-interrater-agreement-in-meta-analyses-what-sample-size-do-i-need/index.html b/content/blog/2023-05-11-assessing-interrater-agreement-in-meta-analyses-what-sample-size-do-i-need/index.html index 3f9d3bd..c344159 100644 --- a/content/blog/2023-05-11-assessing-interrater-agreement-in-meta-analyses-what-sample-size-do-i-need/index.html +++ b/content/blog/2023-05-11-assessing-interrater-agreement-in-meta-analyses-what-sample-size-do-i-need/index.html @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ --- title: Assessing interrater agreement in meta-analyses - what sample size do I need? author: Lukas Wallrich -date: '2023-05-11' +date: '2024-05-11' slug: assessing-interrater-agreement-in-meta-analyses-what-sample-size-do-i-need categories: [statistics] tags: [] @@ -28,6 +28,10 @@ +
Work in Progress: This post is a draft and currently under review.
+
Feedback is highly welcome. Please double-check the details before relying on them for decision-making.
Researchers conducting meta-analyses and systematic reviews need to decide whether to use one or multiple researchers at both the screening and coding stages. While double-coding leads to the identification of more relevant articles (Waffenschmidt et al. 2019), and (almost necessarily) to greater accuracy in coding, it is also much more resource-intensive. Therefore, many protocols specify that they will double-screen or double-code a share of articles and then either simply use that to report on interrater reliability or to decide on the approach for the remaining sources.
@@ -166,6 +170,7 @@