2009Statistica NeerlandicaOpen access

Agreement between an isolated rater and a group of raters

Sophie Vanbelle, A. Albert

Open full text 34 citations

Abstract

The agreement between two raters judging items on a categorical scale is traditionally assessed by Cohen's kappa coefficient. We introduce a new coefficient for quantifying the degree of agreement between an isolated rater and a group of raters on a nominal or ordinal scale. The group of raters is regarded as a whole, a reference or gold‐standard group with its own heterogeneity. The coefficient, defined on a population‐based model, requires a specific definition of the concept of perfect agreement. It has the same properties as Cohen's kappa coefficient and reduces to the latter when there is only one rater in the group. The new approach overcomes the problem of consensus within the group of raters and generalizes Schouten's index. The method is illustrated on published syphilis data and on data collected from a study assessing the ability of medical students in diagnostic reasoning when compared with expert knowledge.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The agreement between two raters judging items on a categorical scale is traditionally assessed by Cohen's kappa coefficient. We introduce a new coefficient for quantifying the degree of agreement between an isolated rater and a group of raters on a nominal or ordinal scale. The group of raters is regarded as a whole, a reference or gold‐standard group with its own heterogeneity. The coefficient, defined on a population‐based model, requires a specific definition of the concept of perfect agreement. It has the same properties as Cohen's kappa coefficient and reduces to the latter when there is only one rater in the group. The new approach overcomes the problem of consensus within the group of raters and generalizes Schouten's index. The method is illustrated on published syphilis data and on data collected from a study assessing the ability of medical students in diagnostic reasoning when compared with expert knowledge.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 34 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The agreement between two raters judging items on a categorical scale is traditionally assessed by Cohen's kappa coefficient. We introduce a new coefficient for quantifying the degree of agreement between an isolated rater and a group of raters on a nominal or ordinal scale. The group of raters is regarded as a whole, a reference or gold‐standard group with its own heterogeneity. The coefficient, defined on a population‐based model, requires a specific definition of the concept of perfect agreement. It has the same properties as Cohen's kappa coefficient and reduces to the latter when there is only one rater in the group. The new approach overcomes the problem of consensus within the group of raters and generalizes Schouten's index. The method is illustrated on published syphilis data and on data collected from a study assessing the ability of medical students in diagnostic reasoning when compared with expert knowledge.

Key concepts: Categorical variable, Kappa, Group (periodic table), Cohen's kappa, Mathematics, Statistics, Level of measurement, Scale (ratio)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Agreement between an isolated rater and a group of raters — Research Paper | ScholarLens