Terry K Koo1, Mae Y Li2. 1. Director & Associate Professor, Foot Levelers Biomechanics Research Laboratory, New York Chiropractic College, Seneca Falls, NY. 2. DC Candidate, Foot Levelers Biomechanics Research Laboratory, New York Chiropractic College, Seneca Falls, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a widely used reliability index in test-retest, intrarater, and interrater reliability analyses. This article introduces the basic concept of ICC in the content of reliability analysis. DISCUSSION FOR RESEARCHERS: There are 10 forms of ICCs. Because each form involves distinct assumptions in their calculation and will lead to different interpretations, researchers should explicitly specify the ICC form they used in their calculation. A thorough review of the research design is needed in selecting the appropriate form of ICC to evaluate reliability. The best practice of reporting ICC should include software information, "model," "type," and "definition" selections. DISCUSSION FOR READERS: When coming across an article that includes ICC, readers should first check whether information about the ICC form has been reported and if an appropriate ICC form was used. Based on the 95% confident interval of the ICC estimate, values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively. CONCLUSION: This article provides a practical guideline for clinical researchers to choose the correct form of ICC and suggests the best practice of reporting ICC parameters in scientific publications. This article also gives readers an appreciation for what to look for when coming across ICC while reading an article.
OBJECTIVE: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a widely used reliability index in test-retest, intrarater, and interrater reliability analyses. This article introduces the basic concept of ICC in the content of reliability analysis. DISCUSSION FOR RESEARCHERS: There are 10 forms of ICCs. Because each form involves distinct assumptions in their calculation and will lead to different interpretations, researchers should explicitly specify the ICC form they used in their calculation. A thorough review of the research design is needed in selecting the appropriate form of ICC to evaluate reliability. The best practice of reporting ICC should include software information, "model," "type," and "definition" selections. DISCUSSION FOR READERS: When coming across an article that includes ICC, readers should first check whether information about the ICC form has been reported and if an appropriate ICC form was used. Based on the 95% confident interval of the ICC estimate, values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively. CONCLUSION: This article provides a practical guideline for clinical researchers to choose the correct form of ICC and suggests the best practice of reporting ICC parameters in scientific publications. This article also gives readers an appreciation for what to look for when coming across ICC while reading an article.
Keywords:
Reliability and validity; Research; Statistics
Authors: Gregory D Cramer; Joe A Cantu; Judith D Pocius; Jerrilyn A Cambron; Ray A McKinnis Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Stephanie Flukes; Shivangi Lohia; Christopher A Barker; Jennifer R Cracchiolo; Ian Ganly; Snehal G Patel; Benjamin R Roman; Jatin P Shah; Alexander N Shoushtari; Viviane Tabar; Akash Shah; Marc A Cohen Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Taher K Eleiwa; Amr Elsawy; Zeba A Syed; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Ahmed M Sayed; Sonia H Yoo; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Yoed N Kenett; David S Rosen; Emilio R Tamez; Sharon L Thompson-Schill Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Fenik Kaml Muhammed; Adil O Abdullah; Zhwan Jamal Rashid; Tamara Pusic; Mohammed F Shbair; Yi Liu Journal: Oral Radiol Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 1.852