Literature DB >> 29795880

Testing the Difference of Correlated Agreement Coefficients for Statistical Significance.

Kilem L Gwet1.   

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of testing the difference between two correlated agreement coefficients for statistical significance. A number of authors have proposed methods for testing the difference between two correlated kappa coefficients, which require either the use of resampling methods or the use of advanced statistical modeling techniques. In this article, we propose a technique similar to the classical pairwise t test for means, which is based on a large-sample linear approximation of the agreement coefficient. We illustrate the use of this technique with several known agreement coefficients including Cohen's kappa, Gwet's AC1, Fleiss's generalized kappa, Conger's generalized kappa, Krippendorff's alpha, and the Brenann-Prediger coefficient. The proposed method is very flexible, can accommodate several types of correlation structures between coefficients, and requires neither advanced statistical modeling skills nor considerable computer programming experience. The validity of this method is tested with a Monte Carlo simulation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gwet’s AC1; agreement coefficients; correlated agreement coefficients; correlated kappas; kappa significance test; raters’ agreement; testing correlated kappas

Year:  2015        PMID: 29795880      PMCID: PMC5965565          DOI: 10.1177/0013164415596420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas        ISSN: 0013-1644            Impact factor:   2.821


  10 in total

1.  Modeling kappa for measuring dependent categorical agreement data.

Authors:  J M Williamson; S R Lipsitz; A K Manatunga
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Weighted least-squares approach for comparing correlated kappa.

Authors:  Huiman X Barnhart; John M Williamson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  The test-retest reliability of qualitative data.

Authors:  L GUTTMAN
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  1946-06       Impact factor: 2.500

4.  Using replicate observations in observer agreement studies with binary assessments.

Authors:  S G Baker; L S Freedman; M K Parmar
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Estimating kappa from binocular data.

Authors:  N L Oden
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement.

Authors:  Kilem Li Gwet
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.380

7.  Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1968-10       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes.

Authors:  D V Cicchetti; A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Comparing correlated kappas by resampling: is one level of agreement significantly different from another?

Authors:  D P McKenzie; A J Mackinnon; N Péladeau; P Onghena; P C Bruce; D M Clarke; S Harrigan; P D McGorry
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.791

10.  Coefficients of agreement between observers and their interpretation.

Authors:  A E Maxwell
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 9.319

  10 in total
  16 in total

1.  Microvascular inflammation in renal allograft biopsies assessed by endothelial and leukocyte co-immunostain: a retrospective study on reproducibility and clinical/prognostic correlates.

Authors:  Marco Delsante; Umberto Maggiore; Jonathan Levi; David E Kleiner; Annette M Jackson; Lois J Arend; Stephen M Hewitt; Naima Carter-Monroe; Serena M Bagnasco; Avi Z Rosenberg
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.782

2.  Measuring intrarater association between correlated ordinal ratings.

Authors:  Kerrie P Nelson; Thomas J Zhou; Don Edwards
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 2.207

3.  Validation of the German Version of the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale.

Authors:  Marco Gerschke; Thomas Schöttker-Königer; Annette Förster; Jonka Friederike Netzebandt; Ulla Marie Beushausen
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 3.438

4.  Bloodpool SPECT as part of bone SPECT/CT in painful total knee arthroplasty (TKA): validation and potential biomarker of prosthesis biomechanics.

Authors:  Jolien Verschueren; Adrien Albert; Laurens Carp; Sarah Ceyssens; Ivan Huyghe; Sigrid Stroobants; Frédéric Paycha; Gopinath Gnanasegaran; Tim Van den Wyngaert
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Toward automated assessment of mole similarity on dermoscopic images.

Authors:  Yao Zhang; Kamil Ali; Jacob A George; Jason S Reichenberg; Matthew C Fox; Adewole S Adamson; James W Tunnell; Mia K Markey
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2021-02-10

6.  Accuracy and Reproducibility of Intraoperative Assessment on Tumor Spread Through Air Spaces in Stage 1 Lung Adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Julian A Villalba; Angela R Shih; Treah May S Sayo; Keiko Kunitoki; Yin P Hung; Amy Ly; Marina Kem; Lida P Hariri; Ashok Muniappan; Henning A Gaissert; Yolonda L Colson; Michael D Lanuti; Mari Mino-Kenudson
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 15.609

7.  Islet Autoantibody Standardization Program 2018 Workshop: Interlaboratory Comparison of Glutamic Acid Decarboxylase Autoantibody Assay Performance.

Authors:  Vito Lampasona; David L Pittman; Alistair J Williams; Peter Achenbach; Michael Schlosser; Beena Akolkar; William E Winter
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 12.167

8.  Do endosonographers agree on the presence of bile duct sludge and the subsequent need for intervention?

Authors:  Rutger Quispel; Hannah M Schutz; Nora D Hallensleben; Abha Bhalla; Robin Timmer; Jeanin E van Hooft; Niels G Venneman; Nicole S Erler; Bart J Veldt; Lydi M J W van Driel; Marco J Bruno
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-05-27

9.  Do oncologists prefer subspecialty radiology reports? A quality care study.

Authors:  Stefania Rizzo; Maria Del Grande; Vittoria Espeli; Anastasios Stathis; Gabriele Maria Nicolino; Filippo Del Grande
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-05-26

10.  Examining the optimal cutoff values of HADS, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as screening instruments for depression and anxiety in irritable bowel syndrome.

Authors:  Johanna T W Snijkers; Wendy van den Oever; Zsa Zsa R M Weerts; Lisa Vork; Zlatan Mujagic; Carsten Leue; Martine A M Hesselink; Joanna W Kruimel; Jean W M Muris; Roel M M Bogie; Ad A M Masclee; Daisy M A E Jonkers; Daniel Keszthelyi
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.960

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.