Agreement between Two Independent Groups of Raters

54 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Conditional inequalities between Cohen's kappa and weighted kappas (2013, methodology): “Popular descriptive statistics for summarizing the agreement between two raters are Cohen’s unweighted kappa, denoted by κ [7,19,22,27,30–35], and Cohen’s weighted kappa, denoted by κw [4,8,28].”
Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa (2011, background): “…been extended to estimate inter-rater reliability for many complicated rating scenarios (e.g., Berry and Mielke 1998; Cohen 1968, 1972; Davies and Fleiss 1982; Fleiss 1971; Gross 1986; Janson and Olsson 2001, 2004; Kraemer 1980; Kraemer et al. 2004; Landis and Koch 1977b; Vanbelle and Albert 2009).”
New interpretations of Cohen's kappa (2014, background): “The overall kappa is a weighted average of them category kappas [15–17].”
Cohen's kappa is a weighted average (2011, unknown): “A proof of this property of Cohen’s κ for agreement tables with n ∈ N≥3 categories can be found in Kraemer [12] and Vanbelle and Albert [21].”
Testing for concordance between several criteria (2014, background): “Note that this problem is different than testing for evidence of agreement between two groups of judges (e.g. male and female judges), see Schucany and Frawley [7], Hollander and Sethuraman [8], Vanbelle and Albert [9].”