Assessment of Disagreement: A New Information-Based Approach

Annals of Epidemiology

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 555-561

  Costa Santos, Cristina ^a   Antunes, Luís ^b,c   Souto, André ^c   Bernardes, João ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

^b University of Porto   (Portugal)

^c INSTITUTO DE TELECOMUNICAÇÕES   (Portugal)

^d INEB INSTITUTO DE ENGENHARIA BIOMÉDICA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Information Theory; Observer Variation; Reproducibility of Results

Indexed keywords

APGAR SCORE; ARTICLE; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METRIC SYSTEM; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROCESS MODEL; RELIABILITY; SCALE UP; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; VALIDITY; VARIANCE; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; APGAR SCORE; BLOOD PRESSURE DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 77953667921     PISSN: 10472797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.02.011     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bland M. An introduction to medical statistics 2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 3rd ed.
2. Costa Santos C., Costa Pereira A., Bernardes J. Agreement studies in obstetrics and gynecology: inappropriateness, controversies and consequences. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005, 112:667-669.
3. Gow R.M., Barrowman N.J., Lai L., Moher D. A review of five cardiology journals found that observer variability of measured variables was infrequently reported. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:394-401.
4. Luiz R.R., Szklo M. More than one statistical strategy to assess agreement of quantitative measurements may usefully be reported. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:215-216.
5. de Vet H. Observer reliability and agreement. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics 1999, 3123-3127. Wiley, Chichester. 1st ed. P. Armitage, T. Colton (Eds.).
6. Shrout P.E., Fleiss J.L. Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 88:420-428.
7. Burdock E.I., Fleiss J.L., Hardesty A.S. A new view of interobserver agreement. Psychol Bull 1963, 16:373-384.
8. McGraw K.O., Wong S.P. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996, 1:30-46.
9. Muller R., Buttner P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med 1994, 13:2465-2476.
10. Steiner D.L., Norman G.R. Health measurements scales. A practical guide to their development and use 2003, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 3rd ed.
11. Lee D., Koh D., Ong C.N. Statistical evaluation of the agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med 1989, 19:61-70.
12. Lin L.K. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989, 45:255-268.
13. Nickerson C.A.E. A note on " A Concordance Correlation Coefficient to Evaluate Reproducibility" Biometrics 1997, 53:1503-1507.
14. Atkinson G., Nevill A. Comment on the " Use of Concordance Correlation to Assess the Agreement between Two Variables" Biometrics 1997, 53:775-777.
15. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistical methods for assessing two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1:307-310.
16. Luiz R.R., Costa A.J., Kale P.L., Werneck G.L. Assessment of agreement of a quantitative variable: a new graphical approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:963-967.
17. Monti K.L. Folded empirical distribution function curves-mountain plots. Am Stat 1995, 33:525-527.
18. Shannon I. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Tech J 1948, 27:379-423. 623-656.
19. Bland J.M., Altaman D.G. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999, 8:135-160.