Agreement between experts: an answer, but is it the answer for you?

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, T.
dc.date.issued2003
dc.descriptionCopyright © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
dc.description.abstractThe question of how should agreement between experts be measured, when their opinions are expressed on an ordinal scale, is discussed. The example used is that of quality of articles submitted to Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. Polychoric correlation is a useful concept, and there are now computer programs available to estimate this. However, it is also emphasised that the definition of agreement is a matter of choice, and the choice should be made carefully: even error-free measurements should not automatically be assumed to possess all the properties of numbers, and ordinal categories bring further difficulties.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityT. P. Hutchinson
dc.description.urihttp://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623056/description#description
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Neuroscience, 2003; 10(2):213-215
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0967-5868(02)00340-5
dc.identifier.issn0967-5868
dc.identifier.issn1532-2653
dc.identifier.orcidHutchinson, T. [0000-0002-4429-0885]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/36432
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherChurchill Livingstone
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0967-5868(02)00340-5
dc.subjectExpert agreement
dc.subjectintraclass correlation
dc.subjectpeer review
dc.subjectpolychoric correlation
dc.titleAgreement between experts: an answer, but is it the answer for you?
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Centre for Automotive Safety Research publications