Robert Kwiecien1, Annette Kopp-Schneider, Maria Blettner. 1. Institut für Biometrie und Klinische Forschung (IBKF) Westfählische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Albert-Schweitzer-Campus, Germany. robert.kwiecien@ukmuenster.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this article, we describe qualitative and quantitative methods for assessing the degree of agreement (concordance) between two measuring or rating techniques. An assessment of concordance is particularly important when a new measuring technique is introduced. METHODS: We give an example to illustrate a number of simple methods of comparing different measuring or rating techniques, and we explain the underlying principle of each method. We also give further illustrative examples from medical research papers that were retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: Methods of comparing different measuring or rating techniques are of two kinds: those with a nominal rating scale and those with a continuous rating scale. We only discuss methods for comparing one measuring or rating technique with another one. Moreover, we point out some common erroneous approaches to concordance analysis. CONCLUSION: Concordance analysis is needed to establish the validity of a new diagnostic measuring or rating technique or to demonstrate the near-equivalence of multiple measuring or rating techniques. Erroneous approaches to concordance analysis can lead to false conclusions.
BACKGROUND: In this article, we describe qualitative and quantitative methods for assessing the degree of agreement (concordance) between two measuring or rating techniques. An assessment of concordance is particularly important when a new measuring technique is introduced. METHODS: We give an example to illustrate a number of simple methods of comparing different measuring or rating techniques, and we explain the underlying principle of each method. We also give further illustrative examples from medical research papers that were retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: Methods of comparing different measuring or rating techniques are of two kinds: those with a nominal rating scale and those with a continuous rating scale. We only discuss methods for comparing one measuring or rating technique with another one. Moreover, we point out some common erroneous approaches to concordance analysis. CONCLUSION: Concordance analysis is needed to establish the validity of a new diagnostic measuring or rating technique or to demonstrate the near-equivalence of multiple measuring or rating techniques. Erroneous approaches to concordance analysis can lead to false conclusions.
Authors: Stefan Feiten; Geothy Chakupurakal; Hans Peter Feustel; Michael Maasberg; Burkhard Otremba; Peter Ehscheidt; Manfred Hensel; Richard Hansen; Rudolf Weide Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Dong Roman Xu; Wenjie Gong; Steve Gloyd; Eric D Caine; Jane Simoni; James P Hughes; Shuiyuan Xiao; Wenjun He; Bofeng Dai; Meijuan Lin; Juan Nie; Hua He Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-05-26 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Meta van den Heuvel; Cornelia M Borkhoff; Christine Koroshegyi; Weeda Zabih; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Jonathon Maguire; Catherine Birken; Patricia Parkin Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2016-10-19
Authors: Travis Dotson; Christina Bellinger; Jing Su; Kris Hansen; Graham E Parks; James O Cappellari; Lou Craddock; Hollins Clark; Clifford Howard; W Jeffrey Petty; Bharat Prakash; Kounosuke Watabe; Michael Chan; Jonathan Hovda; Lance D Miller; Jimmy Ruiz Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 5.705