ArticleBMJ open2026
Developments in the field of reliability and agreement studies in health, psychological and educational measurement: a methods review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reporting of reliability and agreement of health measurement instruments. However, since their publication in 2011 methodological standards, both for reporting guideline development and reliability, agreement and measurement error studies have advanced, highlighting the need for aligning and updating. In addition, related initiatives like COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) have emerged, offering opportunities to harmonise terminology and promote consistency across diverse types of measurement instruments. This method review aims to (1) systematically identify and synthesise commentaries on and evaluations of the original GRRAS and (2) map recent methodological developments in the planning, conduct and interpretation of reliability, agreement and measurement error studies in health science, psychology and education that should be reflected in the reporting, to inform the development of the GRRAS-COSMIN reporting guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two complementary search strategies will be employed. First, forward direct citation tracking of the original GRRAS publications will be conducted in Web of Science. We will include sources providing critique, commentaries or suggestions related to the GRRAS. We will exclude publications that used GRRAS just for structuring their report, withdrawn or retracted articles, textbooks, peer reviews, supplements and conference materials without full-text publications. Included articles will be analysed using descriptive content analysis. Second, we will perform a systematic search in MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, ERIC and CINAHL supplemented by key references identified by or known to the author team. We will include studies, reviews, commentaries, editorials, methodological papers, tutorials and guidance documents that discuss or critically reflect on methodological aspects of the measurement properties reliability and/or agreement/measurement error published between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2026 in health sciences, psychology or education. Eligibility will be assessed by two independent reviewers and included sources will be analysed using 'codebook' thematic analysis. Findings will be presented narratively supplemented by visuals and tables if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study involves publicly available data. No ethical approval is needed. Results will be disseminated through an open-access journal publication following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review Extension and conference presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.