↓ Skip to main content

Multiple‐rater kappas for binary data: Models and interpretation

Overview of attention for article published in Biometrical Journal, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Multiple‐rater kappas for binary data: Models and interpretation
Published in
Biometrical Journal, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/bimj.201600267
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 9 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2023.
All research outputs
#10,029,391
of 29,212,704 outputs
Outputs from Biometrical Journal
#153
of 707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,163
of 462,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biometrical Journal
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,212,704 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 707 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 462,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.