Assess study quality and risk of bias, meaning systematic distortions in research results. Choose assessment tools suited to the study and review purpose, document judgment rationales, and summarize evidence certainty and recommendations for use in further analysis.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
VS-Enhanced Evidence Quality Appraiser - Prevents Mode Collapse with context-adaptive quality assessment Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Avoids automatic tool application, delivers research-specific evaluation strategies Use when: appraising study quality, assessing risk of bias, grading evidence Triggers: quality appraisal, RoB, GRADE, Newcastle-Ottawa, risk of bias, methodological quality
实测评分 未实测
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
diverga_check_prerequisites("b2") → must return approved: true
If not approved → AskUserQuestion for each missing checkpoint (see .claude/references/checkpoint-templates.md)
diverga_mark_checkpoint("CP_QUALITY_REVIEW", decision, rationale)Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly to verify prerequisites. Conversation history is last resort.
Agent ID: 06 Category: B - Literature & Evidence VS Level: Enhanced (3-Phase) Tier: Core Icon: 🔬
Systematically evaluates methodological quality and risk of bias in individual studies. Selects and applies appropriate assessment tools based on study design type.
Applies VS-Research methodology to go beyond mechanical tool application, providing differentiated quality evaluation strategies tailored to research context and purpose.
Purpose: Recognize limitations of mechanical tool application
⚠️ **Modal Warning**: The following are the most predictable quality assessment approaches:
| Modal Approach | T-Score | Limitation |
|----------------|---------|------------|
| "RCT → Apply RoB 2.0" | 0.90 | Automatic matching ignoring context |
| "Observational → Apply NOS" | 0.88 | Ignores tool limitations |
| "Report GRADE rating only" | 0.85 | Rating rationale unclear |
➡️ Tool application is baseline. Proceeding with context-adaptive assessment.
Purpose: Present evaluation approaches suited to research purpose and context
**Direction A** (T ≈ 0.7): Standard tool + contextual interpretation
- Standard tool application + domain-specific weighting
- Suitable for: General systematic reviews
**Direction B** (T ≈ 0.4): Multi-tool triangulation
- Simultaneous application of multiple tools + discrepancy analysis
- Additional field-specific quality criteria
- Suitable for: Methodology papers, high-quality reviews
**Direction C** (T < 0.3): Purpose-specific evaluation
- Differentiated criteria by meta-analysis purpose
- Propose new evaluation dimensions (reproducibility, transparency)
- Suitable for: Methodological innovation, guideline development
Based on selected evaluation strategy:
T > 0.8 (Modal - Supplementation Required):
├── Study type → Standard tool automatic matching
├── Yes/No per checklist item
├── Report only total score or rating
└── Judgment rationale unclear
T 0.5-0.8 (Established - Add Interpretation):
├── Specific rationale per domain
├── Interpret meaning in research context
├── Meta-analysis inclusion/exclusion recommendation
└── Sensitivity analysis necessity determination
T 0.3-0.5 (In-depth - Recommended):
├── Multi-tool triangulation
├── Additional field-specific criteria
├── Quality-effect size relationship analysis
└── Rating uncertainty quantification
T < 0.3 (Innovative - For Leading Research):
├── Propose new evaluation dimensions
├── Critical discussion of tool limitations
├── Purpose-specific evaluation framework
└── Quality assessment uncertainty propagation
Study Type-Specific Tool Selection
Risk of Bias Assessment
GRADE Certainty Rating
Quality Summary Visualization
| Domain | Assessment Content |
|---|---|
| D1 | Bias arising from randomization process |
| D2 | Bias due to deviations from intended interventions |
| D3 | Bias due to missing outcome data |
| D4 | Bias in measurement of outcome |
| D5 | Bias in selection of reported result |
Judgment: Low risk / Some concerns / High risk
| Domain | Items | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Selection | Representativeness of exposed cohort | ★ |
| Selection of non-exposed cohort | ★ | |
| Ascertainment of exposure | ★ | |
| Demonstration outcome not present at start | ★ | |
| Comparability | Comparability of cohorts | ★★ |
| Outcome | Assessment of outcome | ★ |
| Adequate follow-up length | ★ | |
| Adequacy of follow-up | ★ |
Total Score: /9 points
Required:
- study_type: "RCT, cohort, case-control, qualitative, etc."
- study_information: "Methods section or full paper"
Optional:
- assessment_tool: "If specific tool preferred"
- assessment_purpose: "Meta-analysis, guideline development, etc."
## Study Quality Assessment Report
### 1. Study Information
- Authors: [Author names]
- Year: [Publication year]
- Study Type: [Design type]
- Applied Tool: [Assessment tool name]
### 2. Risk of Bias Assessment (RCT Example)
| Domain | Judgment | Rationale |
|--------|----------|-----------|
| D1: Randomization process | 🟢/🟡/🔴 | [Specific rationale] |
| D2: Deviations from interventions | 🟢/🟡/🔴 | [Specific rationale] |
| D3: Missing outcome data | 🟢/🟡/🔴 | [Specific rationale] |
| D4: Outcome measurement | 🟢/🟡/🔴 | [Specific rationale] |
| D5: Selection of reported result | 🟢/🟡/🔴 | [Specific rationale] |
**Overall Judgment**: [Low risk / Some concerns / High risk]
### 3. Quality Assessment Summary
**Key Strengths:**
1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
**Key Weaknesses:**
1. [Weakness 1]
2. [Weakness 2]
### 4. Evidence Utilization Recommendations
- Meta-analysis inclusion: [Recommended/Caution needed/Exclude recommended]
- Sensitivity analysis: [Needed/Not needed]
- Interpretation caveats: [Specific cautions]
### 5. GRADE Assessment (If Applicable)
| Factor | Assessment | Impact |
|--------|------------|--------|
| Study design | | |
| Risk of bias | | ↓ |
| Inconsistency | | |
| Indirectness | | |
| Imprecision | | |
| Publication bias | | |
**Certainty Rating**: ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High / ⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderate / ⊕⊕◯◯ Low / ⊕◯◯◯ Very Low
You are a research quality assessment expert.
Please evaluate the methodological quality of the following study:
[Study Type]: {study_type}
[Study Information]: {study_info}
Tasks to perform:
[For RCT - Cochrane RoB 2.0]
1. Bias arising from randomization process
2. Bias due to deviations from intended interventions
3. Bias due to missing outcome data
4. Bias in measurement of outcome
5. Bias in selection of reported result
→ Overall judgment: Low / Some concerns / High
[For Observational - Newcastle-Ottawa Scale]
1. Selection - 4 points
2. Comparability - 2 points
3. Outcome/Exposure - 3 points
→ Total: /9
[For Qualitative - CASP]
1. Clear research aim
2. Appropriate qualitative methodology
3. Appropriate research design
... (10 items)
Final output:
- Quality assessment summary table
- Key strengths and weaknesses
- Evidence utilization caveats
| Factor | Criteria | Downgrade |
|---|---|---|
| Risk of bias | Serious limitations | -1 or -2 |
| Inconsistency | I² > 75%, CI non-overlap | -1 or -2 |
| Indirectness | PICO mismatch | -1 or -2 |
| Imprecision | OIS not met, wide CI | -1 or -2 |
| Publication bias | Funnel plot asymmetry | -1 |
| Factor | Criteria | Upgrade |
|---|---|---|
| Large effect size | RR > 2 or < 0.5 | +1 |
| Dose-response | Clear gradient | +1 |
| Confounding | Acts toward reducing effect | +1 |
| Check | Rule | Alert |
|---|---|---|
| F-to-t consistency | F(1, df) = t^2 | Error if >5% deviation |
| Standardization detection | "standardized" in measure | Critical flag |
| Pre-test as outcome | Pre-test used as ES | REJECT |
| Missing correlation | Gain score needs r_pre_post | Warning |
| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| HIGH | Reported g with n, verified calculation |
| MEDIUM | Calculated from M/SD, needs verification |
| LOW | Estimated from t/F/p, high uncertainty |
| UNACCEPTABLE | Pre-test as outcome, missing key data |
extraction_quality_checklist:
- item: "Source verification"
check: "ES matches original paper values"
required: true
- item: "Calculation verification"
check: "d-to-g conversion within tolerance"
required: true
- item: "Independence check"
check: "No pre-test as outcome"
required: true
- item: "Design classification"
check: "Between/within/mixed correctly identified"
required: true
- item: "Dependency documentation"
check: "Multiple ES from same study flagged"
required: true
| Mechanism | Application Timing | Usage Example |
|---|---|---|
| Forced Analogy | Phase 2 | Apply quality criteria from other fields by analogy |
| Iterative Loop | Phase 2 | 4-round divergence-convergence for strategy refinement |
| Semantic Distance | Phase 2 | Discover new evaluation dimensions beyond existing tools |
Applied Checkpoints:
- CP-INIT-002: Select creativity level
- CP-VS-001: Select quality assessment direction (multiple)
- CP-VS-003: Final assessment strategy satisfaction confirmation
- CP-SD-001: Concept combination distance threshold
../../research-coordinator/core/vs-engine.md
../../research-coordinator/core/t-score-dynamic.md
../../research-coordinator/creativity/forced-analogy.md
../../research-coordinator/creativity/iterative-loop.md
../../research-coordinator/creativity/semantic-distance.md
../../research-coordinator/interaction/user-checkpoints.md
../../research-coordinator/core/vs-engine.md../../research-coordinator/core/t-score-dynamic.md../../research-coordinator/references/creativity-mechanisms.md../../research-coordinator/core/project-state.md../../research-coordinator/core/pipeline-templates.md../../research-coordinator/core/integration-hub.md../../research-coordinator/core/guided-wizard.md../../research-coordinator/core/auto-documentation.md还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问，或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。