Cohen`s kappa (or simply Kappa) statistic must measure the agreement between two councillors. The results of Kappa and weighted Kappa are displayed with confidence limits of 95%. Kappa usually ranges from 0 to 1 with a value of 1 means perfect match. (Negative values are possible.) The higher the value of Kappa, the better the strength of the agreement. The Kappa coefficient of the Inter-Rater Reliability/KAPPA Cohen is a method of assessing the degree of agreement between two advisors. The Kappa weighted method is designed in such a way that it is partly, but not fully credited by advisors, in order to obtain the “near” response, so it should only be used if the degree of the agreement can be quantified. The weighted Kappa coefficient is 0.57 and the asymptomatic confidence interval is 95% (0.44, 0.70). This indicates that the agreement between the two radiologists is modest (and not as strong as the researchers had hoped). If the observed agreement is due only to chance, i.e. if the evaluations are completely independent, then each diagonal element is a product of the two marginalized groups. 1. The (Bowker`s) symmetry test tests the hypothesis that pij-pji (marginal homogeneity). If r-c2, then it`s the same as the McNemar test.

If this test is not significant, it indicates that both advisors have the same tendency to select categories. If it is important, if it means that advisors choose the categories in different proportions. To get kappa statistics in SAS, we use proc freq with kappa test instruction. By default, SAS only calculates Kappa statistics if the two variables have exactly the same categories, which is not the case in this specific instance. We can get around this problem by adding a false observation and a weight variable presented below. The weight variable takes value 1 for all actual observations and the value of 0 for the false observation we just added. The trick is to use the Zeros option for ordering. Note that a strong agreement involves a strong association, but a strong association cannot involve a strong agreement. If Siskel, for example, classifies most films in the con category while Ebert classifies them in the professional category, the association could be strong, but there is certainly no agreement. You can also think about the situation where one examiner is harder than the other.

The first always gives a note less than the softest. In this case, the association is also very strong, but the consent can be insignificant. Because the overall probability of an agreement is related to the agreement, the probability of an agreement below zero is the value of “i” /π.i. Also note that the “Ii -0” option does not mean matching and that the If ii -1 indicates a perfect match. Kappa statistics are defined in such a way that greater value implies greater agreement: from the output below, we can see that the “Simple Kappa” gives The estimated value of Kappa of 0.389 with its standard asymptomatic error (ASE) of 0.0598. The difference between the observed agreement and the expected independence is about 40% of the maximum possible difference. Based on the reported 95% confidence interval, the value is between 0.27 and 0.51, suggesting only a moderate agreement between Siskel and Ebert. 2. The simple Kappa coefficient measures the degree of correspondence between two advisors. If Kappa is large (most would say .7 or more), this indicates a high degree of concordance. To define a perfect disagreement, film audiences would have to clash in this case, ideally in extremes.

In a 2 x 2 table, it is possible to define a perfect disagreement, because any positive assessment might have some negative rating (z.B. Love vs. Hate`s), but what about a 3 x 3 square table or higher? In these cases, there are more opportunities to disagree, so it quickly becomes more complicated to oppose it completely.