Joint Probability of Agreement
The joint-probability of agreement is probably the most simple and least robust measure. It is the number of times each rating (e.g. 1, 2, ... 5) is assigned by each rater divided by the total number of ratings. It assumes that the data are entirely nominal. It does not take into account that agreement may happen solely based on chance. Some question, though, whether there is a need to 'correct' for chance agreement; and suggest that, in any case, any such adjustment should be based on an explicit model of how chance and error affect raters' decisions.
When the number of categories being used is small (e.g. 2 or 3), the likelihood for 2 raters to agree by pure chance increases dramatically. This is because both raters must confine themselves to the limited number of options available, which impacts the overall agreement rate, and not necessarily their propensity for "intrinsic" agreement (is considered "intrinsic" agreement, an agreement not due to chance). Therefore, the joint probability of agreement will remain high even in the absence of any "intrinsic" agreement among raters. A useful inter-rater reliability coefficient is expected to (1) be close to 0, when there is no "intrinsic" agreement, and (2) to increase as the "intrinsic" agreement rate improves. Most chance-corrected agreement coefficients achieve the first objective. However, the second objective is not achieved by many known chance-corrected measures.
Read more about this topic: Inter-rater Reliability
Famous quotes containing the words joint, probability and/or agreement:
“Such joint ownership creates a place where mothers can “father” and fathers can “mother.” It does not encourage mothers and fathers to compete with one another for “first- place parent.” Such competition is not especially good for marriage and furthermore drives kids nuts.”
—Kyle D. Pruett (20th century)
“Crushed to earth and rising again is an author’s gymnastic. Once he fails to struggle to his feet and grab his pen, he will contemplate a fact he should never permit himself to face: that in all probability books have been written, are being written, will be written, better than anything he has done, is doing, or will do.”
—Fannie Hurst (1889–1968)
“The doctrine of those who have denied that certainty could be attained at all, has some agreement with my way of proceeding at the first setting out; but they end in being infinitely separated and opposed. For the holders of that doctrine assert simply that nothing can be known; I also assert that not much can be known in nature by the way which is now in use. But then they go on to destroy the authority of the senses and understanding; whereas I proceed to devise helps for the same.”
—Francis Bacon (1560–1626)