( observed agreement [Po] – expected agreement [Pe]) / (agreement 1 expected [Pe]). Note that a strong agreement involves a strong association, but a strong association cannot involve a strong agreement. If Siskel, for example, classifies most films in the con category while Ebert classifies them in the professional category, the association could be strong, but there is certainly no agreement. You can also think about the situation where one examiner is harder than the other. The first always gives a note less than the softest. In this case, the association is also very strong, but the consent can be insignificant. Cohen`s kappa (or simply Kappa) statistic must measure the agreement between two councillors. For the three situations described in Table 1, the use of the McNemar test (designed to compare coupled categorical data) would not make a difference. However, this cannot be construed as evidence of an agreement. The McNemar test compares the total proportions; Therefore, any situation in which the total share of the two examiners in Pass/Fail (for example. B situations 1, 2 and 3 in Table 1) would result in a lack of differences. Similarly, the mated t-test compares the average difference between two observations in a single group.

It cannot therefore be significant if the average difference between unit values is small, although the differences between two observers are important for individuals. Kalantri et al. considered the accuracy and reliability of the pallor as a tool for detecting anemia. [5] They concluded that „clinical evaluation of pallor in cases of severe anaemia may exclude and govern modestly.“ However, the inter-observer agreement for pallor detection was very poor (Kappa values -0.07 for conjunctiva pallor and 0.20 for tongue pallor), meaning that pallor is an unreliable sign of diagnosis of anemia. The correspondence between the measurements refers to the degree of correspondence between two (or more) measures. Statistical methods used to verify compliance are used to assess the variability of inter-variability or to decide whether one variable measurement technique can replace another. In this article, we examine statistical measures of compliance for different types of data and discuss the differences between them and those for assessing correlation. There is little consensus on the most appropriate statistical methods for analyzing advisor compliance (here we will use the terms „miss“ and „ratings“ to include observers, judges, diagnostic tests, etc.) and their evaluations/results.) For the non-statistician, the number of alternatives and the lack of coherence in the literature are undoubtedly of concern.

This site aims to reduce confusion and help researchers choose the appropriate methods for their applications.

Categories: Allgemein