The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.

By J. Sim, C. Wright. Physical Therapy, 2005

4,153 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Oncology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6d3768fde2a9dbf78644f0a817d4470c836e60b7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Oncology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (PCL-5) in veterans. (2016, neutral): “Specifically, to have .80 power to detect a (cid:4) of .60, assuming prevalence of PTSD is 10% with a null value of .40, we would need over 400 participants (Sim & Wright, 2005).”
Prediction of Land Use and Land Cover Changes for North Sumatra, Indonesia, Using an Artificial-Neural-Network-Based Cellular Automaton (2019, methodology): “The Kappa coefficient is widely used in LULC assessments for accuracy [37] to measure the true agreement between the observed agreement and chance agreement [38].”
Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Systematic Review (2015, methodology): “We also computed Cohen’s kappa, a statistic that takes into account agreement that would happen purely by chance (Sim & Wright, 2005).”
How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. (2005, methodology): “The equivalent to a correlation coefficient is then the kappa coefficient.(11)) The data plotted in Figure 1 were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance, and the values from the analysis of variance table were substituted into Equation 1.”
Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care (2018, background): “[Munafò et al. 2017, Zendel et al. 2017, Jannin, Grova and Maurer 2006, Jannin and 1982, Raudys 1991, Kalayeh and Landgrebe 2012, Bonnet 2002, Shoukri et al. 2004, Sim and Wright 2005] How to avoid bias in the training/test data?”
Comprehensive Board Diversity and Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from an Emerging Market (2017, methodology): “1.0, whereby a kappa of 1.0 means that two raters show perfect agreement; a kappa of -1.0 means that they show perfect and consistent disagreement, and a kappa of 0 means that the two raters show a random level of agreement/disagreement (Sim and Wright 2005).”
Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa (2011, background): “…is measured on a nominal scale, Cohen’s j is considered the most important (von Eye 2006) and most widely accepted measure of inter-rater reliability (Brennan and Silman 1992; Sim and Wright 2005; Zwick 1988), especially in the medical literature (Kraemer et al. 2004; Viera and Garrett 2005).”
A Mixed‐Method Examination of Preschool Teacher Beliefs About Social–Emotional Learning and Relations to Observed Emotional Support (2014, methodology): “In order to control for chance agreement of codes, Kappa was calculated to be 0.59, a moderate and acceptable level of reliability (Sim & Wright, 2005).”
Simultaneously Discovering and Quantifying Risk Types from Textual Risk Disclosures (2014, methodology): “Although still in its growing stage, automated text analysis has been applied in many fields of social science, including political science (Grimmer 2010), economics (Aral et al. 2011), psychology (Tausczik and Pennebaker 2010), and others.”
Cow behaviour pattern recognition using a three-dimensional accelerometer and support vector machines (2009, background): “The value of kappa indicates substantially greater classification agreement than would be expected to occur by chance (Sim and Wright, 2005), which is a definite prerequisite for a usable classifier.”