Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42518753›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2026

The double-pass correlation: A reliability metric for subjective judgments in developmental research.

Ryoichi Watanabe, Yusuke Moriguchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ryoichi WatanabeResearch Organization of Open Innovation and Collaboration, Ritsumeikan University, 2-150 Iwakura-cho, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-8570, Japan.
Yusuke MoriguchiGraduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshidahonmachi, Sakyo Ward, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ensuring reliable psychological experiments with young children is challenging, especially when outcomes depend on subjective judgments that vary across individuals and tasks. The double-pass design, in which identical trials are presented twice to assess within-participant consistency, is useful for evaluating reliability. However, the number of repeated trials required for reliable estimation in developmental samples remains unclear. We reanalyzed the data from 30 children aged 3-6 years and 31 adults who completed two blocks of color pair similarity judgments. In the observed order analysis, adults reached stable correlations with approximately 31 trials under a strict criterion and 14 trials under a lenient criterion, whereas children required approximately 50 and 32 trials, respectively. Children reached ρ = .30 after approximately 49 repetitions, whereas stronger thresholds were less consistent: 83.3% exceeded ρ = .50 and 63.3% exceeded ρ = .70 in the full 81-trial estimates. These findings suggest that approximately 50 repeated trials may be appropriate for young children when feasible, whereas at least 32 repeated trials may be needed as a minimum shortened procedure to obtain reliable results. For adults, approximately 31 trials may suffice. These results provide empirical guidance for designing shorter, developmentally appropriate tasks that maintain reliable interpretability.

Indexed as

ChildrenDouble-pass-correlationReliabilitySimilarity-judgement

Identifiers

PMID42518753
PMCPMC13382141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.