Literature DB >> 8310189

How reliable are chance-corrected measures of agreement?

I Guggenmoos-Holzmann1.   

Abstract

Chance-corrected measures of agreement are prone to exhibit paradoxical and counter-intuitive results when used as measures of reliability. It is demonstrated that these problems arise with Cohen's kappa as well as with Aickin's alpha. They are the consequence of an analogy to Simpson's paradox in mixed populations. It is further shown that chance-corrected measures of agreement may yield misleading values for binary ratings. It is concluded that improvements in the design and the analysis of reliability studies are a prerequisite for valid and pertinent results.

Mesh：

Year:  1993        PMID： 8310189     DOI： 10.1002/sim.4780122305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN： 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  10 in total

1.  How do statistical properties influence findings of tracking (maintenance) in epidemiologic studies? An example of research in tracking of obesity.

Authors:  Youfa Wang; Xiaofei Wang
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Automatic detection of fast oscillations (40-200 Hz) in scalp EEG recordings.

Authors:  Nicolás von Ellenrieder; Luciana P Andrade-Valença; François Dubeau; Jean Gotman
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  A Monte Carlo-Based Bayesian Approach for Measuring Agreement in a Qualitative Scale.

Authors:  Fernando Calle-Alonso; Carlos Javier Pérez Sánchez
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2014-11-05

5.  Observer agreement paradoxes in 2x2 tables: comparison of agreement measures.

Authors:  Viswanathan Shankar; Shrikant I Bangdiwala
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Robustness of κ -type coefficients for clinical agreement.

Authors:  Amalia Vanacore; Maria Sole Pellegrino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-02-06       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  Development and preliminary psychometric properties of a well-being index for medical students.

Authors:  Liselotte N Dyrbye; Daniel W Szydlo; Steven M Downing; Jeff A Sloan; Tait D Shanafelt
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 8.  Methodological considerations concerning the development of oral dental erosion indexes: literature survey, validity and reliability.

Authors:  Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff; Marcus Kutschmann; Doris Bardehle
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Assessing agreement between multiple raters with missing rating information, applied to breast cancer tumour grading.

Authors:  Thomas R Fanshawe; Andrew G Lynch; Ian O Ellis; Andrew R Green; Rudolf Hanka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Degenerative findings on MRI of the cervical spine: an inter- and intra-rater reliability study.

Authors:  Line Thorndal Moll; Morten Wasmod Kindt; Christina Malmose Stapelfeldt; Tue Secher Jensen
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2018-10-16
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.