Assumptions behind Intercoder Reliability Indices
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium
Hayes, A. F. (2009) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637750903310360 · Cited by 9,757 · see citing works
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Krippendorff (2004b) and Neuendorf (2002) denote this as ao,: = (1) Scott (1955, p. 322) observed that ao was “commonly used.””
BackgroundAnswering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312450709336664 · Cited by 4,225 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Because %-agreement fails to take into account chance agreements, it is often considered “the most primitive” (Cohen, 1960, p. 38) and “fl awed” (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007, p. 80) indicator of reliability, leading to decades-long efforts to “account for” and “remove” chance agreements…”
BackgroundMethodContent Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x · Cited by 3,068 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Byrt, T., Bishop, J., & Carlin, J. B. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v · Cited by 2,179 · see citing works
Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments
Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172601 · Cited by 1,575 · see citing works
Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations.
Krippendorff, K. (2004) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/30.3.411 · Cited by 1,027 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Why Cohen’s Kappa should be avoided as performance measure in classification
Delgado, R., & Tibau, X.-A. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222916 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Haber, N. A., Clarke-Deelder, E., Feller, A., Smith, E. R., Salomon, J. A., MacCormack-Gelles, B., Stone, E. M., Bolster-Foucault, C., Daw, J. R., Hatfield, L. A., et al. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053820 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Interrater reliability for multilevel data: A generalizability theory approach.
ten Hove, D., Jorgensen, T. D., & van der Ark, L. A. (2022) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000391 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge
Spiliopoulou, E., Fogliato, R., Burnsky, H., Soliman, T., Ma, J., Horwood, G., & Ballesteros, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.06709
- Authors
- Zhao, X., Liu, J. S., & Deng, K.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Annals of the International Communication Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- green
- nrs.harvard.edu
- 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