↓ 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)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
436 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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 7 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 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 386 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 19%
Student > Master 62 16%
Researcher 56 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 7%
Student > Bachelor 27 7%
Other 93 24%
Unknown 55 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 21%
Psychology 44 11%
Social Sciences 34 9%
Engineering 18 5%
Computer Science 18 5%
Other 113 29%
Unknown 86 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 May 2022.
All research outputs
#5,144,089
of 21,637,777 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#740
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,384
of 176,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,637,777 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. 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 176,048 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them