R rating

R rating may refer to:

See also

Rating

A rating is the evaluation or assessment of something, in terms of quality (as with a critic rating a novel), quantity (as with an athlete being rated by his or her statistics), or some combination of both.

Rating may also refer to:

Chess rating system

A chess rating system is a system used in chess to calculate an estimate of the strength of the player, based on his or her performance versus other players. They are used by organizations such as FIDE, the US Chess Federation (USCF or US Chess), International Correspondence Chess Federation, and the English Chess Federation. Most of the systems are used to recalculate ratings after a tournament or match but some are used to recalculate ratings after individual games. In almost all systems a higher number indicates a stronger player. In general, players' ratings go up if they perform better than expected and down if they perform worse than expected. The magnitude of the change depends on the rating of their opponents. The Elo rating system is currently the most widely used.

The first modern rating system was used by the Correspondence Chess League of America in 1939. Soviet player Andrey Khachatoruv proposed a similar system in 1946. The first one that made an impact on international chess was the Ingo system in 1948. The USCF adopted the Harkness system in 1950. Shortly after, the British Chess Federation started using a system devised by Richard W. B. Clarke. The USCF switched to the Elo rating system in 1960, which was adopted by FIDE in 1970 (Hooper & Whyld 1992:332).

Rating (pharmaceutical industry)

Rater training is a term used in the pharmaceutical industry when raters, or those who administer the training at the sites, are trained to rate properly. This can result in inter-rater or intra-rater reliability.

Many times rater training is used in subjective trials, such as in CNS studies. Studies dealing with such indications as pain, mental disease or mood are not able to easily track progress with physical or physiological testing, rather, verbal subjective human testing is used. This can allow for an array of differences in rating.

When conducting global clinical trials, ensuring consistency is most important but can prove to be quite challenging.