Measure of Agreement H in mXm Contingency Table

Title & Authors
Measure of Agreement H in mXm Contingency Table
Kim, Jin-Gon; Park, Mi-Hee; Park, Yong-Gyu;

Abstract
A measure of agreement H in$\small{2{\times}2}$ contingency table was proposed by Park and Park (2007) to resolve the two paradoxes of k. In this study, we generalize H to where the number of categories is greater than two and derive its asymptotic large-sample variance. We also explain the relationships between k`s paradoxes and marginal distributions. Using some examples of $\small{3{\times}3}$ contingency tables, the behaviors of H and other measures of agreement are compared.
Keywords
Measure of agreement H;paradoxes of k;marginal distributions;
Language
Korean
Cited by
1.
가중 합치도 Hω와 κ의 새로운 역설,권나영;김진곤;박용규;

응용통계연구, 2009. vol.22. 5, pp.1073-1084
References
1.
박미희, 박용규 (2007). COHEN의 합치도의 두 가지 역설을 해결하기 위한 새로운 합치도의 제안, <응용통계연구>, 20, 117-132

2.
Bennet, E. M. and Alpert, R. and Goldstein, A. C. (1954). Communications through limited response questioning, Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 303-308

3.
Cicchetti, D. V., Lee, C., Fontana, A. F. and Dowds, B. N. (1978). A computer program for assessing specific category rater agreement for qualitative data, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 805-813

4.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 20, 37-46

5.
Feinstein, A, R. and Cicchetti, D. V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: 1. The problems of two paradoxes, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 543-549

6.
Gwet, K. (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability. STATAXIS Publishing company, Gaithersburg

7.
Holley, J. W. and Guiiford, J. P. (1964). A note on the G index of agreement, Educational and Psycholog-ical Measurement, 24, 749-753

8.
Janson, S. and Vegelius, J. (1979). On generalizations of the G index and the phi coefficient to nominal scales, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 255-269

9.
Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding, Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325