Cited by 113Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementPsychometric Methodologies and TestingComputational and Text Analysis Methods

Assumptions behind Intercoder Reliability Indices

Open access
Zhao, Xinshu, Liu, Jun S., Deng, Ke·2013·Annals of the International Communication Association

Abstract

Inter-coder reliability is the most often used quantitative indicator of measurement quality in content studies. Researchers in psychology, sociology, education, medicine, marketing and other disciplines also use reliability to evaluate the quality of diagnosis, tests and other assessments. Many indices of reliability have been recommended for general use. This article analyzes 22, which are organized into 18 chance-adjusted and four non-adjusted indices. The chance-adjusted indices are further organized into three groups, including nine category-based indices, eight distribution-based indices, and one that is double based, on category and distribution. The main purpose of this work is to examine the assumptions behind each index. Most of the assumptions are unexamined in the literature, and yet these assumptions have implications for assessments of reliability that need to be understood, and that result in paradoxes and abnormalities. This article discusses 13 paradoxes and nine abnormalities to illustrate the 24 assumptions. To facilitate understanding, the analysis focuses on categorical scales with two coders, and further focuses on binary scales where appropriate. The discussion is situated mostly in analysis of communication content. The assumptions and patterns that we will discover will also apply to studies, evaluations and diagnoses in other disciplines with more coders, raters, diagnosticians, or judges using binary or multi-category scales. We will argue that a ne…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23808985.2013.11679142

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Due to known problems with chance-corrected measures of inter-rater reliability when applied to datasets with highly skewed label distributions, the paper additionally presents observed agreement.

    “Due to known problems with chance-corrected measures of inter-rater reliability when applied to datasets with highly skewed label distributions [Zhao et al., 2013], we additionally present observed agreement.”

    From Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge (2025) · cites this paper as Zhao et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, X., Liu, J. S., & Deng, K.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Annals of the International Communication Association
Published
2013-01
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
419-480
ISSN
  • 2380-8977 (ISSN-L)
  • 2380-8985
OpenAlex
W2265312303
Cited by
113
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Annals of the International Communication Association (publishedVersion)
  • HKBU Institutional Repository (Hong Kong Baptist University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
intercoder reliability, reliability index, measurement quality

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