Table 2.

Summary of reported strengths in included studies

Study	Ease of use					Versatility				Resource efficiency		Reliability and validity
	Effective	Simple to use	Easy to use	Quick	Language blind	Versatile	Range of applications	Flexible	Useful	Efficient	Cost-effective	Reliable	Good with large texts	Systematic	Inbuilt cross-validation for reliability	High face validity	Equal or better than manual coding
Baek, Cappella and Bindman* [29]	☑	☑	☑	☑		☑	☑	☑	☑	☑		☑	☑	☑		☑	☑
Baumann, Debus and Müller [41]	☑					☑			☑			☑	☑
Bernauer and Bräuninger* [38]	☑				☑				☑			☑	☑			☑
Budge and Pennings* [37]	☑	☑		☑			☑			☑			☑	☑
Coffé and Da Roit [39]	☑								☑
Costa, Gilmore, Peeters, McKee and Stuckler [28]	☑											☑	☑				☑
Debus [35]	☑	☑					☑										☑
Hug and Schulz [40]	☑				☑		☑			☑		☑	☑		☑		☑
Klemmensen, Hobolt and Hansen* [30]		☑	☑		☑	☑	☑	☑		☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑
Laver, Benoit and Garry* [25]	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑
Lowe* [31]	☑	☑	☑			☑							☑
Volkens* [36]	☑	☑	☑	☑		☑		☑	☑	☑	☑	☑	☑		☑	☑	☑

*These studies were formal evaluations of Wordscores