Agreement models for multiraters
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, ISSN: 1300-0144, Vol: 41, Issue: 5, Page: 939-944
2011
- 2Citations
- 49Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- Usage49
- Downloads40
- Abstract Views9
Article Description
Aim: Agreement between 2 or more independent raters evaluating the same items and same scale can be measured by kappa coefficient. In recent years, modeling agreement among raters rather than summarizing indices has been preferred. In this study, the disadvantages of kappa are reviewed. Agreement models are introduced and these models are applied to a real data set. Materials and methods: Three pathologists classified each of 118 slides in terms of carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix, based on the most involved lesions. Using log-linear agreement models, agreement between 3 pathologists according to their evaluations was investigated. Results: Coefficient of kappa was found to be 0.48 among the 3 pathologists, which indicates a moderate agreement. Models were applied to the data. The agreement parameter was estimated for the best model among models. The probability of giving the same decision by the 3 pathologists was 2.5 times higher than that of giving a different decision. Conclusion: Log-linear models can be used to measure the agreement among more than 2 raters. Modeling agreement can provide more information than kappa. © TÜBİTAK.
Bibliographic Details
The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK-ULAKBIM) - DIGITAL COMMONS JOURNALS
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know