Inter-Rater Agreement Inter-Rater Reliability
0.85 – 1.96 x 0.037 to 0.85 – 1.96 x 0.037, which is calculated on an interval between 0.77748 and 0.92252, a confidence interval of 0.78 to 0.92. It should be noted that the SE depends in part on the sample size. The higher the number of measured observations, the lower the expected standard error. While kappa can be calculated for relatively small sample sizes (z.B 5), IC should be broad enough for such studies, which will lead to a lack of “concordance” within the IC. As a general heuristic, the sample size should not be less than 30 comparisons. Sample sizes of 1000 or more are mathematically the most likely to produce very small CIS, which means that the estimate of match should be very accurate. The common probability of an agreement is the simplest and least robust measure. It is estimated as a percentage of the time advisors agree in a nominal or categorical evaluation system. It ignores the fact that an agreement can only be made on the basis of chance. The question arises as to whether a random agreement should be “corrected” or not; Some suggest that such an adaptation is in any case based on an explicit model of the impact of chance and error on business decisions.  Unfortunately, the limit amounts may or may not estimate the amount of the random agreement in the event of uncertainty. It is therefore doubtful that the reduction in the estimate of the agreement provided for by the kappa statistics is truly representative of the amount of the coincidence-advice agreement.
In theory, the pre (e) is an estimate of the approval rate when advisors advise each position and guess with rates similar to marginal shares, and when the advisors were totally independent (11). None of these hypotheses is justified, so there are wide differences of opinion on the use of Kappa among researchers and statisticians. For rxx, we used two different reliability dimensions: (1) the RICC obtained in our study population and (2) the test test reliability (Bockmann and 0ese-Himmel, 2006), a value that comes from a larger and representative population and rather reflects the characteristics of the ELAN and not our sample. The use of external sources of reliability indicators, as used in the second RCI calculation, was.B recommended by Maassen (2004) and can be considered the most conservative means of estimating ROI.