The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Method agreement analysis: A review of correct methodology
Open accessAbstract
The correct approach to analyzing method agreement is discussed. Whether we are considering agreement between two measurements on the same samples (repeatability) or two individuals using identical methodology on identical samples (reproducibility) or comparing two methods, appropriate procedures are described, and worked examples are shown. The correct approaches for both categorical and numerical variables are explained. More complex analyses involving a comparison of more than two pairs of data are mentioned and guidance for these analyses given. Simple formulae for calculating the approximate sample size needed for agreement analysis are also given. Examples of good practice from the reproduction literature are cited, and common errors of methodology are indicated.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Sample size requirements for the design of reliability study: review and new results
Shoukri, M. M., Asyali, M. H., & Donner, A. (2004) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1191/0962280204sm365ra · Cited by 459
Cited by
Baker, L. B., Model, J. B., Barnes, K. A., Anderson, M. L., Lee, S. P., Lee, K. A., Brown, S. D., Reimel, A. J., Roberts, T. J., Nuccio, R. P., et al. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe3929 · Cited by 243
Castellini, G., Bruschettini, M., Gianola, S., Gluud, C., & Moja, L. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0770-1 · Cited by 161
Haghayegh, S., Kang, H.-A., Khoshnevis, S., Smolensky, M. H., & Diller, K. R. (2020) · Physiological Measurement · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ab86d6 · Cited by 152
Castelnovo, A., Ferri, R., Punjabi, N. M., Castronovo, V., Garbazza, C., Zucconi, M., Ferini-Strambi, L., & Manconi, M. (2019) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2018.12.007 · Cited by 99
López-Moreno, A., & Aguilera, M. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10071461 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Watson, P. F., & Petrie, A.
- Venue
- Theriogenology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1167-1179
- ISSN
- 0093-691X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156762605
- Cited by
- 881
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Method agreement analysis: A review of correct methodology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003
- The paper
- Watson, P. F., & Petrie, A. (2010). Method agreement analysis: A review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
