Literature DB >> 16795610

Back to basics: Percentage agreement measures are adequate, but there are easier ways.

J C Birkimer1, J H Brown.   

Abstract

Percentage agreement measures of interobserver agreement or "reliability" have traditionally been used to summarize observer agreement from studies using interval recording, time-sampling, and trial-scoring data collection procedures. Recent articles disagree on whether to continue using these percentage agreement measures, and on which ones to use, and what to do about chance agreements if their use is continued. Much of the disagreement derives from the need to be reasonably certain we do not accept as evidence of true interobserver agreement those agreement levels which are substantially probable as a result of chance observer agreement. The various percentage agreement measures are shown to be adequate to this task, but easier ways are discussed. Tables are given to permit checking to see if obtained disagreements are unlikely due to chance. Particularly important is the discovery of a simple rule that, when met, makes the tables unnecessary. If reliability checks using 50 or more observation occasions produce 10% or fewer disagreements, for behavior rates from 10% through 90%, the agreement achieved is quite improbably the result of chance agreement.

Year:  1979        PMID: 16795610      PMCID: PMC1311476          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1979.12-535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal        ISSN: 0021-8855


  7 in total

1.  "Perhaps it would be better not to know everything.".

Authors:  D M Baer
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1977

2.  A graphical judgmental aid which summarizes obtained and chance reliability data and helps assess the believability of experimental effects.

Authors:  J C Birkimer; J H Brown
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1979

3.  Observer agreement, credibility, and judgment: some considerations in presenting observer agreement data.

Authors:  T R Kratochwill; R J Wetzel
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1977

4.  Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates.

Authors:  D P Hartmann
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1977

5.  Reviewer's comment: just because it's reliable doesn't mean that you can use it.

Authors:  D M Baer
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1977

6.  A review of the observational data-collection and reliability procedures reported in The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

Authors:  M B Kelly
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1977

7.  A probability-based formula for calculating interobserver agreement.

Authors:  A R Yelton; B G Wildman; M T Erickson
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1977
  7 in total
  18 in total

1.  Applied behavior analysis and interobserver reliability: A commentary on two articles by Birkimer and Brown.

Authors:  R P Hawkins; B D Fabry
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1979

2.  Why the "I've got a better agreement measure" literature continues to grow: A commentary on two articles by Birkimer and Brown.

Authors:  J D Cone
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1979

3.  The nature of behavioral assessment: A commentary.

Authors:  R O Nelson; S C Hayes
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1979

4.  Just because it's reliable doesn't mean it's believable: A commentary on two articles by Birkimer and Brown.

Authors:  T R Kratochwill
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1979

5.  A cautionary note on the use of probability values to evaluate interobserver agreement.

Authors:  D P Hartmann; W Gardner
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1982

6.  On the not so recent invention of interobserver reliability: A commentary on two articles by Birkimer and Brown.

Authors:  D P Hartmann; W Gardner
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1979

7.  Television food advertising to children in Slovenia: analyses using a large 12-month advertising dataset.

Authors:  Živa Korošec; Igor Pravst
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 3.380

8.  Expert versus novice interrater reliability and criterion validity of the landing error scoring system.

Authors:  James Onate; Nelson Cortes; Cailee Welch; Bonnie L Van Lunen
Journal:  J Sport Rehabil       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.931

9.  Barriers and facilitators to the management of mental health complications after mild traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Noah D Silverberg; Thalia Otamendi; Amanda Dulai; Ripenjot Rai; Jason Chhina; Anna MacLellan; Pierre-Paul Lizotte
Journal:  Concussion       Date:  2021-06-15

10.  Assessment of the Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) for evaluating mobile health (mHealth) technology.

Authors:  William Brown; Po-Yin Yen; Marlene Rojas; Rebecca Schnall
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 6.317

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.