Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/36432
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, T.-
dc.date.issued2003-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Neuroscience, 2003; 10(2):213-215-
dc.identifier.issn0967-5868-
dc.identifier.issn1532-2653-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/36432-
dc.descriptionCopyright © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.-
dc.description.abstractThe question of how should agreement between experts be measured, when their opinions are expressed on an ordinal scale, is discussed. The example used is that of quality of articles submitted to Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. Polychoric correlation is a useful concept, and there are now computer programs available to estimate this. However, it is also emphasised that the definition of agreement is a matter of choice, and the choice should be made carefully: even error-free measurements should not automatically be assumed to possess all the properties of numbers, and ordinal categories bring further difficulties.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityT. P. Hutchinson-
dc.description.urihttp://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623056/description#description-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherChurchill Livingstone-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0967-5868(02)00340-5-
dc.subjectExpert agreement-
dc.subjectintraclass correlation-
dc.subjectpeer review-
dc.subjectpolychoric correlation-
dc.titleAgreement between experts: an answer, but is it the answer for you?-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0967-5868(02)00340-5-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidHutchinson, T. [0000-0002-4429-0885]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 6
Centre for Automotive Safety Research publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.