The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa.
Abstract
The statistics kappa (Cohen, 1960) and weighted kappa (Cohen, 1968) were introduced to provide coefficients of agreement between two raters for nominal scales. Kappa is appropriate when all disagreements may be considered equally serious, and weighted kappa is appropriate when the relative seriousness of the different possible disagreements can be specified. The papers describing these two statistics also present expressions for their standard errors. These expressions are incorrect, having been derived from the contradictory assumptions of fixed marginal totals and binomial variation of cell frequencies. Everitt (1968) derived the exact variances of weighted and unweighted kappa when the parameters are zero by assuming a generalized hypergeometric distribution. He found these expressions to be far too complicated for routine use, and offered, as alternatives, expressions derived by assuming binomial distributions. These alternative expressions are incorrect, essentially for the same reason as above. Assume that N subjects are distributed into k* cells by each of them being assigned to one of k categories by one rater and, independently, to one of the same k categories by a second
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“At the balanced matched point (p 11 , p 10 , p 01 , p 00 ) = (0.4,0.1, 0.1, 0.4)which adds π = 0.5 on top of matched marginals κ = ϕ = 0.6, and the multinomial delta method using the closed-form κ variance of Fleiss et al. (1969) gives Var(κ) = Var( φ) = 16/(25N ) = 0.640/N -not the 0.41/N that the bivariatenormal approximation (1 -ϕ 2 ) 2 /N would yield for continuous Pearson, which does not”
From Agreement Metrics for LLM-as-Judge Evaluation: What to Report and Why (2026) · cites this paper as Fleiss et al. (1969)
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
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
Self-citation
Cited by
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Self-citationFleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316447303300309 · Cited by 3,354
Self-citationWaddell, G., Newton, M., Henderson, I., Somerville, D., & Main, C. J. (1993) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-b · Cited by 3,167
High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l · Cited by 3,034
Metadata
- Authors
- Fleiss, J. L., Cohen, J., & Everitt, B. S.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1969-11
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 323-327
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W1979773093
- Cited by
- 1,520
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.