Cited by 193Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Performance of Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) as a Reliability Index under Various Distributions in Scale Reliability Studies

Open access
Mehta, Shraddha, Bastero‐Caballero, Rowena F., Sun, Yijun, Zhu, Ray, Murphy, Diane K., Hardas, Bhushan, Koch, Gary·2018·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Many published scale validation studies determine inter-rater reliability using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). However, the use of this statistic must consider its advantages, limitations, and applicability. This paper evaluates how interaction of subject distribution, sample size, and levels of rater disagreement affects ICC and provides an approach for obtaining relevant ICC estimates under suboptimal conditions. Simulation results suggest that for a fixed number of subjects, ICC from the convex distribution is smaller than ICC for the uniform distribution, which in turn is smaller than ICC for the concave distribution. The variance component estimates also show that the dissimilarity of ICC among distributions is attributed to the study design (ie, distribution of subjects) component of subject variability and not the scale quality component of rater error variability. The dependency of ICC on the distribution of subjects makes it difficult to compare results across reliability studies. Hence, it is proposed that reliability studies should be designed using a uniform distribution of subjects because of the standardization it provides for representing objective disagreement. In the absence of uniform distribution, a sampling method is proposed to reduce the non-uniformity. In addition, as expected, high levels of disagreement result in low ICC, and when the type of distribution is fixed, any increase in the number of subjects beyond a moderately large specification such as n = 80 does not have a major impact on ICC.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.7679

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 193

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Guidance for Industry: Patient‐reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Food and Drug Adminstration 2009 Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. PMC1629006 17034633

Authors
Mehta, S., Bastero‐Caballero, R. F., Sun, Y., Zhu, R., Murphy, D. K., Hardas, B., & Koch, G.
Affiliations
  • Allergan plc, 2525 Dupont Drive Irvine CA 92612 USA
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Mehta, Shraddha
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-29
Volume
37
Issue
18
Pages
2734-2752
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2801789271
Cited by
193
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2
FWCI
10.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Allergan
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
intraclass correlation coefficient, scale reliability, inter-rater reliability, subject distribution, uniform distribution, variance components, rater disagreement, sample size, sampling methods
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Bias, Sample Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review