Agreement between experts: An answer, but is it the answer for you?

Journal of Clinical Neuroscience

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 213-215

  Hutchinson, T P ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Expert agreement; Intraclass correlation; Peer review; Polychoric correlation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SHORT SURVEY; VARIANCE;

EID: 0037344116     PISSN: 09675868     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0967-5868(02)00340-5     Document Type: Short Survey

References (9)

1. Ludbrook J. Peer review of manuscripts. J Clin Neurosci 2002; 9: 105-108.
2. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 2000; 123: 1964-1969.
3. Hutchinson TP. Kappa muddles together two sources of disagreement: tetrachoric correlation is preferable. Res Nurs Health 1993; 16: 313-315.
4. Maclure M, Willett WC. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 126: 161-169.
5. Uebersax JS. The tetrachoric and polychoric correlation coefficients. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/tetra.htm (2000).
6. Hutchinson TP, Gudlaugsdottir S. Modelling bivariate ordinal contingency tables arising in studies of interobserver variation, with application to cervical screening. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 422-423.
7. Hutchinson TP, Gudlaugsdottir S. Modelling the errors in scoring the darkness of staining. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2002; 24: 121-124.
8. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973; 33: 613-619.
9. Rothwell PM. Analysis of agreement between measurements of continuous variables: general principles and lessons from studies of imaging of carotid stenosis. J Neurol 2000; 415: 825-834.