Protocol
Hide condition labels from the person judging the outcome
The evaluator should not have to fight the label before judging the work.
When it fits
- An evaluation may be influenced by knowing which version is supposed to be better.
When to avoid it
- Some interventions cannot conceal their condition. Blinding one assessor does not make every part of a study blinded.
Why it matters
Where feasible, present outputs without revealing their condition, author or expected winner. Specify who remains unaware and what they assess. Blinding is a design choice about information access, not a ceremonial word added to the report.
Steps
- Identify the judgment that could be influenced by condition identity.
- Use neutral identifiers and an agreed assessment procedure where safe and practical.
- Record who was blinded and any clues that may have revealed the condition.
An example
A reviewer scores anonymized writing samples without seeing which drafting method produced each one.
Check your result
The judgment was made without the avoidable label cue, and exceptions are disclosed.
Keep this limit in mind
- Some interventions cannot conceal their condition. Blinding one assessor does not make every part of a study blinded.
Evidence and sources
Supports
Blinding keeps specified participants or assessors unaware of condition identity where this is feasible.
Who was blinded matters more than an unexplained label such as double-blind.
Introductory Statistics 2e, 1.4: Experimental Design and Ethics · Blinding definitions and observer example