Re: test re test reliability
- From: Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:45:16 -0400
On 13 Apr 2005 03:19:07 -0700, popscan@xxxxxxxxxxx (matt) wrote:
> as i understand things, intra class correlation is being advocated as
> a more accurate expression of reliability over time as it also
I think it is fair to say that when you are *investigating*
reliability, you ought to be very clear in your own mind
about the effects of changes of mean, changes of variance,
and low correlation-as-standard r. You do that most elegantly,
in my opinion, by looking at those separately. You also,
in your investigating and developing, want to look at each
rater separately.
The IC compresses these concerns into one number. That
*can* be good for certain decisions. The IC for multiple
raters is good for planning for multiple raters. I don't think
of a good use for an IC across time... But, undeniably, some
reviewers and editors like to see an IC and possibly consider
any r as 'crude.'
> addresses changes in magnitude that sytematically affect a population,
> whereas the standard r will not recognise this.
>
> Is there any situation where the r statistic is more appropriate to
> use that the intra class correlation?
>
I think I addressed that, above. There might be some
relevant comments in my stats-FAQ, or you could
google groups, in sci.stat.* .
Here are other good comments on reliability -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/agree.htm
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
- References:
- test re test reliability
- From: matt
- test re test reliability
- Prev by Date: distribution test in current issue of Amstat News
- Next by Date: Re: Mean and variance tests
- Previous by thread: test re test reliability
- Next by thread: multinomial probit with choice-specific covariates
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|