关于选择类内相关系数以获得评分者间可靠性的最新指南,并将其应用于不完整的观察设计。

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychological methods Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1037/met0000516
Debby Ten Hove, Terrence D Jorgensen, L Andries van der Ark
{"title":"关于选择类内相关系数以获得评分者间可靠性的最新指南,并将其应用于不完整的观察设计。","authors":"Debby Ten Hove, Terrence D Jorgensen, L Andries van der Ark","doi":"10.1037/met0000516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) are available to assess the interrater reliability (IRR) of observational measurements. Selecting an ICC is complicated, and existing guidelines have three major limitations. First, they do not discuss incomplete designs, in which raters partially vary across subjects. Second, they provide no coherent perspective on the error variance in an ICC, clouding the choice between the available coefficients. Third, the distinction between fixed or random raters is often misunderstood. Based on generalizability theory (GT), we provide updated guidelines on selecting an ICC for IRR, which are applicable to both complete and incomplete observational designs. We challenge conventional wisdom about ICCs for IRR by claiming that raters should seldom (if ever) be considered fixed. Also, we clarify how to interpret ICCs in the case of unbalanced and incomplete designs. We explain four choices a researcher needs to make when selecting an ICC for IRR, and guide researchers through these choices by means of a flowchart, which we apply to three empirical examples from clinical and developmental domains. In the Discussion, we provide guidance in reporting, interpreting, and estimating ICCs, and propose future directions for research into the ICCs for IRR. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":"967-979"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Updated guidelines on selecting an intraclass correlation coefficient for interrater reliability, with applications to incomplete observational designs.\",\"authors\":\"Debby Ten Hove, Terrence D Jorgensen, L Andries van der Ark\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Several intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) are available to assess the interrater reliability (IRR) of observational measurements. Selecting an ICC is complicated, and existing guidelines have three major limitations. First, they do not discuss incomplete designs, in which raters partially vary across subjects. Second, they provide no coherent perspective on the error variance in an ICC, clouding the choice between the available coefficients. Third, the distinction between fixed or random raters is often misunderstood. Based on generalizability theory (GT), we provide updated guidelines on selecting an ICC for IRR, which are applicable to both complete and incomplete observational designs. We challenge conventional wisdom about ICCs for IRR by claiming that raters should seldom (if ever) be considered fixed. Also, we clarify how to interpret ICCs in the case of unbalanced and incomplete designs. We explain four choices a researcher needs to make when selecting an ICC for IRR, and guide researchers through these choices by means of a flowchart, which we apply to three empirical examples from clinical and developmental domains. In the Discussion, we provide guidance in reporting, interpreting, and estimating ICCs, and propose future directions for research into the ICCs for IRR. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"967-979\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000516\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000516","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有几种类内相关系数(ICC)可用于评估观察测量的研究者间可靠性(IRR)。选择 ICC 比较复杂,现有指南有三大局限性。首先,它们没有讨论不完全设计,在这种设计中,评分者在不同受试者之间存在部分差异。其次,它们没有对 ICC 中的误差方差提供一致的观点,从而使在可用系数之间进行选择变得模糊不清。第三,固定或随机评分者之间的区别经常被误解。基于可推广性理论(GT),我们提供了为 IRR 选择 ICC 的最新指南,这些指南适用于完整和不完整的观察设计。我们对有关 IRR ICC 的传统观点提出质疑,认为很少(如果有的话)应将评分者视为固定的。此外,我们还阐明了在不平衡和不完全设计的情况下如何解释 ICC。我们解释了研究人员在为 IRR 选择 ICC 时需要做出的四种选择,并通过流程图指导研究人员完成这些选择,我们将流程图应用于临床和发展领域的三个实证例子。在 "讨论 "部分,我们为报告、解释和估计 ICCs 提供了指导,并提出了 IRR ICCs 的未来研究方向。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Updated guidelines on selecting an intraclass correlation coefficient for interrater reliability, with applications to incomplete observational designs.

Several intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) are available to assess the interrater reliability (IRR) of observational measurements. Selecting an ICC is complicated, and existing guidelines have three major limitations. First, they do not discuss incomplete designs, in which raters partially vary across subjects. Second, they provide no coherent perspective on the error variance in an ICC, clouding the choice between the available coefficients. Third, the distinction between fixed or random raters is often misunderstood. Based on generalizability theory (GT), we provide updated guidelines on selecting an ICC for IRR, which are applicable to both complete and incomplete observational designs. We challenge conventional wisdom about ICCs for IRR by claiming that raters should seldom (if ever) be considered fixed. Also, we clarify how to interpret ICCs in the case of unbalanced and incomplete designs. We explain four choices a researcher needs to make when selecting an ICC for IRR, and guide researchers through these choices by means of a flowchart, which we apply to three empirical examples from clinical and developmental domains. In the Discussion, we provide guidance in reporting, interpreting, and estimating ICCs, and propose future directions for research into the ICCs for IRR. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信