Agreement Multiple Raters

The behavior of the new measure of the agreement was studied for a number of different attitudes, including the prevalence of the disease and – for an ordinal classification scale of five categories (C-5), with the results of Figure 1. Comparisons were made with existing agreements (section 4.2) and a cohen-kappa based on the GLMM parameters of the agreement (point 4.3). Figure 1 shows diagrams of match measures for increase and difference in prevalence (extremely low or high, moderate, equal to each category, as shown in Table 2). Fleiss` Kappa, Light and Conger`s kappa and Cohen`s kappa based on GLMM parameters gave virtually identical averages, so that only Fleiss` Kappa F is presented on plots. Real parametric values were used in the diagrams, with the exception of . F, which was used on series of 1000 simulated datasets. All compliance measures increased as values increased at a steeper rate as the number 1 approached. As a result, experts are more likely to agree when there is a wider dispersion of test results (greater u2) relative to variability between experts. All agreements took very similar values when the prevalence of the disease was evenly distributed among the five categories (as indicated by the percentage of observations in each category). However, as the prevalence of the disease has become more extreme (high or low), the proposed new measure has not been affected, while velvet cohen chords (GLMM, F and LC), sensitive to prevalence effects, have increased.

The performance of the GLMM (2) ordinal and the proposed summary arrangement measure (3) was studied through in-depth simulation studies. Sets of a thousand data sets were randomly generated on the basis of an ordinary BMM with a random effect structure crossed with C-5 categories with a set of real parameter values ∞ ∞,…, with a set of real parameter values: for each dataset, random effects ui and J-Expert were randomly generated by N (0 (u2) or N (0.v2). The rmultinome function in R has been used to randomly generate Yij observations based on normal multivariaten probabilities of feeding, Pr (Yij- c∣i, . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . The clmm function of the R-Ordinal package [43] was used to adapt the GLMM model for each dataset to obtain parameter estimates, and estimated the proposed synthesis measures and their deviations. Four groups of simulations were conducted to assess the effects of differences in counselor and subjects, the number of subjects and experts, and the extreme or poor prevalence of the disease (based on the probability of classifying it as high or low disease categories).

A fifth series of simulations was conducted to study the robustness of the proposed approach and to measure acceptance of normally distributed random effects. In this fifth set of simulations, a thousand sets of data were generated with random non-normal subject effects, i-1,….,I was fortuitous of a square-scale and centered distribution [44] with five degrees of freedom (2.5∗) averaging 0 and the same variance, 10, as in two of the other sets of simulations; The random effects of the vj, j-1,…,J expert were randomly collected from a uniform distribution (3.3) that gives an average of 0 and variance of 1, the same average and variance as for all other simulation groups.