ArticleMethodsX2026
The double-pass correlation: A reliability metric for subjective judgments in developmental research.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.