<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Intra-rater reliability of nominal data in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104754#M5528</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;My understanding of Cohen's Kappa is that it is a test of the inter-rater reliability - the agreement between two raters. I'm not having any luck finding documentation of anyone using it for intra-rater reliability. The investigator is asking how internally consistent this one rater is, using 5 repetitions of this 4-level nominal rating system.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:21:21 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>MeredithG</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-07-12T13:21:21Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Intra-rater reliability of nominal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104752#M5526</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've got data on one judge who rated 100 MRIs 5 times each. The options for the rating are "M", "L", "M and L" or "Neither", and there is no natural ordering to these ratings. Is there a way to get an intra-rater reliability for these data? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:48:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104752#M5526</guid>
      <dc:creator>MeredithG</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-07-11T19:48:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Intra-rater reliability of nominal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104753#M5527</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Look up topic "Tests and Measures of Agreement" in proc freq documentation. Cohen's Kappa is available. - PG&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:53:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104753#M5527</guid>
      <dc:creator>PGStats</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-07-11T19:53:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Intra-rater reliability of nominal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104754#M5528</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;My understanding of Cohen's Kappa is that it is a test of the inter-rater reliability - the agreement between two raters. I'm not having any luck finding documentation of anyone using it for intra-rater reliability. The investigator is asking how internally consistent this one rater is, using 5 repetitions of this 4-level nominal rating system.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:21:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104754#M5528</guid>
      <dc:creator>MeredithG</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-07-12T13:21:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Intra-rater reliability of nominal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104755#M5529</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Weighted Kappa applies to more than two raters (or &lt;EM&gt;independent&lt;/EM&gt; ratings, at different times by the same rater). SAS even computes exact and stratified versions, with confidence intervals and a strata homogeneity test. Unless the investigator can be more specific as to what is meant by reliability, weighted kappa could well serve as a measure of consistency. Using strata, you could evaluate the progress of a rater or compare the level of difficulty of different types of MRIs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PG&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104755#M5529</guid>
      <dc:creator>PGStats</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-07-12T15:05:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Intra-rater reliability of nominal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104756#M5530</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you treat this as a problem of testing agreement among 5 raters, you can use the multiple rater kappa provided by the MAGREE macro:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://support.sas.com/kb/25006"&gt;http://support.sas.com/kb/25006&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:14:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Intra-rater-reliability-of-nominal-data/m-p/104756#M5530</guid>
      <dc:creator>StatDave</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-30T17:14:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

