# Best Inter-Rater Agreement

This interchangeability has a particular advantage when three or more encoders are used in a study, as CICs may contain three or more encoders, while weighted kappa can only absorb two encoders (Norman &Streiner, 2008). The assessment of linkability in epidemiological studies is heterogeneous and often uncertainty is not taken into account, leading to methodological misuse. In addition, there is no evidence of the best measure of reliability in different circumstances (in terms of lack of data, distribution of prevalence, and number of assessors or categories). With the exception of a study by Häußler [20] comparing compliance measures for the particular case of two assessors and binary measures, there is no systematic comparison of reliability measures. That`s why our goal was Feinstein A, Cicchetti D. High approval but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43 (6):543-9. Villages de crèches alpha[16][17] is a versatile statistic that evaluates the concordance between observers who categorize, evaluate or measure a certain amount of objects in relation to the values of a variable. It generalizes several specialized conformity coefficients by accepting any number of observers, applicable to nominal, ordinal, interval and proportional levels, capable of processing missing data and being corrected for small sample sizes. We looked at the effect of each factor of variation individually; To do this, we defined a factor at a certain level, then we varied the levels of all the other factors and reported the results of these simulations. It turns out that with larger sample sizes, the average probability of empirical detection, for both Alpha and Fleiss`K nursery villages, approaches the nominal level of 95% (fig.

4a). With a sample of 200, the average probability of empirical coverage is quite close to the theoretical probability of 95%. As the number of categories increases, the coverage probability area decreases (Figure 4b). For three evaluators, the probability of coverage is lower than that of five or ten evaluators, while for five and ten evaluators, the probability of coverage is more or less equal (fig. . . .