Multiple‐rater kappas for binary data: Models and interpretation

Interrater agreement on binary measurements with more than two raters is often assessed using Fleiss' κ, which is known to be difficult to interpret. In situations where the same raters rate all items, however, the far less known κ suggested by Conger, Hubert, and Schouten is more appropriate....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBiometrical journal Vol. 60; no. 2; pp. 381 - 394
Main Authors Stoyan, Dietrich, Pommerening, Arne, Hummel, Manuela, Kopp‐Schneider, Annette
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Germany Wiley - VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA 01.03.2018
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0323-3847
1521-4036
1521-4036
DOI10.1002/bimj.201600267

Cover

More Information
Summary:Interrater agreement on binary measurements with more than two raters is often assessed using Fleiss' κ, which is known to be difficult to interpret. In situations where the same raters rate all items, however, the far less known κ suggested by Conger, Hubert, and Schouten is more appropriate. We try to support the interpretation of these characteristics by investigating various models or scenarios of rating. Our analysis, which is restricted to binary data, shows that conclusions concerning interrater agreement by κ heavily depend on the population of items or subjects considered, even if the raters have identical behavior. The standard scale proposed by Landis and Koch, which verbally interprets numerical values of κ, appears to be rather subjective. On the basis of one of the models for rater behavior, we suggest an alternative verbal interpretation for kappa. Finally, we reconsider a classical example from pathology to illustrate the application of our methods and models. We also look for subgroups of raters with similar rating behavior using hierarchical clustering.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0323-3847
1521-4036
1521-4036
DOI:10.1002/bimj.201600267