Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic

Mary L McHugh, Mary L McHugh

Abstract

The kappa statistic is frequently used to test interrater reliability. The importance of rater reliability lies in the fact that it represents the extent to which the data collected in the study are correct representations of the variables measured. Measurement of the extent to which data collectors (raters) assign the same score to the same variable is called interrater reliability. While there have been a variety of methods to measure interrater reliability, traditionally it was measured as percent agreement, calculated as the number of agreement scores divided by the total number of scores. In 1960, Jacob Cohen critiqued use of percent agreement due to its inability to account for chance agreement. He introduced the Cohen's kappa, developed to account for the possibility that raters actually guess on at least some variables due to uncertainty. Like most correlation statistics, the kappa can range from -1 to +1. While the kappa is one of the most commonly used statistics to test interrater reliability, it has limitations. Judgments about what level of kappa should be acceptable for health research are questioned. Cohen's suggested interpretation may be too lenient for health related studies because it implies that a score as low as 0.41 might be acceptable. Kappa and percent agreement are compared, and levels for both kappa and percent agreement that should be demanded in healthcare studies are suggested.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Components of data in a research data set.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Graphical representation of amount of correct data by % agreement or squared kappa value.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Data for kappa calculation example.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Calculation of the kappa statistic.

References

    1. Bluestein D, Javaheri A. Pressure Ulcers: Prevention, Evaluation, and Management. Am Fam Physician. 2008;78:1186–94.
    1. Kottner J, Halfens R, Dassen T. An interrater reliability study of the assessment of pressure ulcer risk using the Braden scale and the classification of pressure ulcers in a home care setting. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:1307–12.
    1. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap Test Accuracy. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:680–9.
    1. Bonnyman A, Webber C, Stratford P, MacIntire N. Intrarater reliability of dual-energy X-Ray absorptiometry–based measures of vertebral height in postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom. 2012 doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2012.03.005.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.
    1. Stemler SE. A Comparison of Consensus, Consistency, and Measurement Approaches to Estimating Interrater Reliability. Practical Research, Assessment and Evaluation. 2004 Available at . Accessed July 20, 2012.
    1. Marston L. Introductory Statistics for Health and Nursing Using SPSS. Sage Publications, Ltd.; 2010.
    1. Marston L. Introductory Statistics for Health and Nursing Using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Ltd.; 2010.
    1. Marusteri M, Bacarea V. Comparing groups for statistical differences: how to choose the right statistical test? Biochem Med. 2010;20:15–32.
    1. Simundic AM. Confidence interval. Biochem Med. 2008;18:154–61.
    1. Ubersax J. Kappa Coefficients. Statistical Methods for Diagnostic Agreement 2010 update. Available at . Accessed July 16, 2010.
    1. Simundic AM, Nikolac N, Ivankovic N, Dragica Ferenec-Ruzic D, Magdic B, Kvaternik M, Topic E. Comparison of visual vs. automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed specimens: can we rely on a human eye? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47:1361–1365.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel