↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa and Gwet’s AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa and Gwet’s AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-61
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nahathai Wongpakaran, Tinakon Wongpakaran, Danny Wedding, Kilem L Gwet

Abstract

Rater agreement is important in clinical research, and Cohen's Kappa is a widely used method for assessing inter-rater reliability; however, there are well documented statistical problems associated with the measure. In order to assess its utility, we evaluated it against Gwet's AC1 and compared the results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 190 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 20%
Student > Master 38 19%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 51 26%
Unknown 16 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 25%
Psychology 28 14%
Social Sciences 17 9%
Computer Science 14 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Other 43 22%
Unknown 34 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,963,896
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#424
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,989
of 151,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 151,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.