Agreement Rating

With respect to latent class modeling, samples are considered to belong to one of the unsupervised categories and the conditional probabilities of a sample assigned to each assessment value given are estimated based on their latent class. Often, the appropriate choice of c is unknown in advance and is estimated, or models with different c values are compared [27], [28]. A synthetic statistic, whose roots are found in the psychology literature, is particularly used in documents that report the agreement between rats with a categorical result: the Kappa coefficient [5]. Subsequent extensions of the approach included versions that could deal with “under-credits” and ordinal scales. [7] These extensions converge with the intra-class correlation family (ICC), which allows us to estimate reliability for each level of measurement, from the notion (kappa) to the ordinal (or ICC) at the interval (ICC or ordinal kappa) and the ratio (ICC). There are also variations that may consider the agreement by the evaluators on a number of points (for example.B. two people agree on the rates of depression for all points of the same semi-structured interview for a case?) as well as cases of raters x (for example. B how do two or more evaluators agree on whether 30 cases have a diagnosis of depression, yes/no a nominal variable). In the absence of rating guidelines, ratings are increasingly influenced by the experimenter, i.e. by a trend in credit ratings that drift towards what he expects from the advisor.

In processes with repeated actions, the correction of board drift can be addressed by regularly retraining to ensure that advisors understand the guidelines and measurement objectives. When respondents respond to a Likert item, they indicate their agreement or disagreement in a symmetrical agree scale for a number of statements. Thus, the area captures the intensity of their feelings for a particular element. [7] As such, Likert-Skalen has found an application in psychology and social sciences, statistics, economics and marketing. [8] There are a large number of documents that support and criticize the use of the Kappa coefficient for the evaluation of the Interrater agreement. In short, the main criticism is that their interpretation is often based on somewhat arbitrary cues, which creates problems of interpretation; that it depends to a large extent on the observed limitations and, therefore, on the mix of cases of the samples used; that, in degenerate cases where one or more of the categories of results are rare, it can be seriously misleading; and that there are no natural extensions when there is more than one outcome of interest or if several advisors are used [6], [20], [21], [22]. Other probability-adjusted measures have also been criticized [23]. For several ordered categories [24], [25], there are weighted versions of the Kappa coefficient, but the interpretation is still tarnished by an often arbitrary selection of weights for each category.