Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Measure of Agreement H in mXm Contingency Table

mXm 분할표에서의 합치도 H

  • Kim, Jin-Gon (Department of Biostatistics, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Mi-Hee (Department of Biostatistics, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Yong-Gyu (Department of Biostatistics, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 김진곤 (가톨릭대학교 의학통계학과) ;
  • 박미희 (가톨릭대학교 의학통계학과) ;
  • 박용규 (가톨릭대학교 의학통계학과)
  • Published : 2009.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A measure of agreement H in$2{\times}2$ 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 $3{\times}3$ contingency tables, the behaviors of H and other measures of agreement are compared.

평정자간 일치 정도를 나타내는 측도로 주로 사용되는 k의 문제점을 해결하기 위해 박미희와 박용규(2007)는 $2{\times}2$ 분할표에서 새로운 합치도 H를 제안하였다. 본 연구에서는 이를 확장하여 $m{\times}m$ 분할표에 대한 합치도 H와 그 분산을 구한다. 또한 k의 역설과 주변분포와의 관계를 증명하고, $3{\times}3$ 분할표 예제를 이용하여 기존의 합치도들과 비교한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박미희, 박용규 (2007). COHEN의 합치도의 두 가지 역설을 해결하기 위한 새로운 합치도의 제안, <응용통계연구>, 20, 117-132 https://doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2007.20.1.117
  2. Bennet, E. M. and Alpert, R. and Goldstein, A. C. (1954). Communications through limited response questioning, Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 303-308 https://doi.org/10.1086/266520
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447803800322
  4. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 20, 37-46 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400402
  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 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1402_9
  9. Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding, Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325 https://doi.org/10.1086/266577