Cited by 23,890Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMultidisciplinary Science and Engineering Research

Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.

Shrout, Patrick E., Fleiss, Joseph L.·1979·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Reliability coefficients often take the form of intraclass correlation coefficients. In this article, guidelines are given for choosing among six different forms of the intraclass correlation for reliability studies in which n target are rated by k judges. Relevant to the choice of the coefficient are the appropriate statistical model for the reliability and the application to be made of the reliability results. Confidence intervals for each of the forms are reviewed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Inter-rater agreement was high for categorical variables (mean Cohen's kappa = 0.73, SD = 0.13) and for continuous variables (mean intraclass correlation = 0.80, SD = .14).

    “As a result, the inter-rater agreement was quite high for categorical variables (mean Cohen's kappa = 0.73, SD = 0.13) and for continuous variables (mean intraclass correlation [26] = 0.80, SD = .14).”
  • Intercoder reliability: Shrout-Fleiss single ICC score agreement of .998.

    “we used the methodology Shrout and Fleiss (1979) describe and computed the Shrout-Fleiss single ICC score agreement of .998, which is considered quite high (Koo and Li 2016).”
  • Cohen's quadratically weighted kappa converges to two-factor intraclass correlation coefficients with random and fixed raters (ICC(2,1) and ICC(3,1)).

    “In contrast, Cohen's quadratically weighted kappa converges to two-factor intraclass correlation coefficients with random and fixed raters (i.e., the so-called ICC (2,1) and ICC(3,1) coefficients), where the items and raters are the two factors (Carrasco, 2010;Fleiss & Cohen, 1973;Janson & Olsson, 2001;Schuster, 2004;Schuster & Smith, 2005;Shrout & Fleiss, 1979;Warrens, 2014).”

    From Quadratically Weighted Agreement Coefficients: Interpretations and Connections (2026) · cites this paper as Shrout & Fleiss, 1979

  • A sample of 11% of video data was double coded by the researcher and an experienced coder, and inter-rater reliability resulted in good to excellent reliability across CHIPPA subscales.

    “A sample of 11% of video data was double coded by the researcher and an experienced coder (the developer of CHIPPA). Inter‐rater reliability was based on intra‐class correlation (ICC) statistics from the mean rating for the two coders (k = 2) using a two‐way mixed effects consistency model (see Table 2 below) and resulted in good to excellent reliability across the CHIPPA subscales (Koo & Li, 2016”
  • Interrater agreement for adherence ratings was high (intraclass correlation [2, 1] = 0.85).

    “The results suggest that coders showed high agreement (intraclass correlation [2, 1] = 0.85; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1979
Volume
86
Issue
2
Pages
420-428
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2141403362
Cited by
23,433
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 870 · 2025: 878 · 2024: 858 · 2023: 945 · 2022: 1028 · 2021: 1297 · 2020: 1128 · 2019: 1066 · 2018: 1127 · 2017: 1070 · 2016: 1075 · 2015: 1034 · 2014: 1157 · 2013: 1038 · 2012: 903
FWCI
33.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Multidisciplinary Science and Engineering Research
Keywords
intraclass correlation coefficient, rater reliability, inter-rater reliability, reliability coefficients, confidence intervals, multiple raters
MeSH terms
Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical

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