Icc Absolute Agreement
Absolute consistency or agreement. In the one-way model, CCI is always an absolute approval measure. In two-way models, there are two types of consistency: consistency when systematic differences between seats are not relevant, and absolute agreement when systematic differences are relevant. In other words, absolute agreement measures the extent to which different advisors assign the same score to the same subject. Conversely, the type of consistency applies when the notes are additive for the same group of subjects (Koo and Li 2016). Because the intraclass correlation coefficient provides a combination of intra-observable and inter-observative variability, its results are sometimes considered difficult to interpret when observers are not interchangeable. Other measures such as Cohen`s kappa statistics, Fleiss-Kappa and correlation coefficient have been proposed as more appropriate compliance measures among non-interchangeable observers. (1) When the data sets are the same, all ICC estimates are equal to 1. (2) As a general rule, the “average K-Rater value” TYPE of CCI is larger than the corresponding type of “individual collector.” (3) The definition of “absolute agreement” generally gives a lower estimate of CCI than “coherence.” (4) Single-use random effects model generally gives a smaller CCI estimate than two-way models. (5) For the same definition of CCI (for example.
B absolute agreement), CCI estimates are identical between both two-way models and mixed effects, as they use the same formula for the calculation of CCI (Table 3). This has an important fact that the difference between random two-track models and mixed effect models lies not in the calculation, but in the experimental design of the reliability study and in the interpretation of the results. We need to understand that there are no defaults for acceptable reliability with ICC. A low CCI could not only reflect the low degree of tingling or measurement agreement, but also relate the lack of variability between the subjects studied, the small number of subjects and the small number of tyingers tested.2, 20 As a general rule, researchers should strive to obtain at least 30 heterogeneous samples and, if possible, to include at least 3 in a reliability study. Under such conditions, we propose that ICC values below 0.5 indicate poor reliability, values between 0.5 and 0.75 indicate moderate reliability, values between 0.75 and 0.9 indicate good reliability, and values above 0.90 indicate excellent reliability.2 We conducted a new analysis of the refs theory. [4-6] supplemented by Monte Carlo simulation demonstrations. We limit the current debate at the ICC with one point; In other words, each measure used in the analysis represents a single measure, not the average of two or more measures. The rating used by McGraw and Wong  results in three different ICC formulas called ICC (1) (ICC of origin without bias, introduced by Fisher ), ICC (A,1) (absolute ICC agreement in the presence of bias) and ICC (C,1) (ICC bias in the presence of bias). These three formulas are identical to the three ICC (1.1), ICC (2.1) and ICC (3.1) formulas, which are named and discussed by Shrout and Fleiss ; However, the rating used by McGraw and Wong is clarified by the systematic separation of absolute agreements (A) and coherence (C) from the ICC; That`s why we decided to follow their rating.