CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,068Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementNews Media Framing and Political CommunicationComputational and Text Analysis Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability

Lombard, Matthew, Snyder-Duch, Jennifer, Bracken, Cheryl Campanella·2002·Human Communication Research
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As a method specifically intended for the study of messages, content analysis is fundamental to mass communication research. Intercoder reliability, more specifically termed intercoder agreement, is a measure of the extent to which independent judges make the same coding decisions in evaluating the characteristics of messages, and is at the heart of this method. Yet there are few standard and accessible guidelines available regarding the appropriate procedures to use to assess and report intercoder reliability, or software tools to calculate it. As a result, it seems likely that there is little consistency in how this critical element of content analysis is assessed and reported in published mass communication studies. Following a review of relevant concepts, indices, and tools, a content analysis of 200 studies utilizing content analysis published in the communication literature between 1994 and 1998 is used to characterize practices in the field. The results demonstrate that mass communication researchers often fail to assess (or at least report) intercoder reliability and often rely on percent agreement, an overly liberal index. Based on the review and these results, concrete guidelines are offered regarding procedures for assessment and reporting of this important aspect of content analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lacy S., 1996, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 969
  2. Perreault W. D., 1989, Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135, 10.1177/002224378902600201 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,005

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C.
Affiliations
  • Temple University (US)
  • Cleveland State University (US)
Venue
Human Communication Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2002-10
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
587-604
ISSN
  • 0360-3989 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2958
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
OpenAlex
W2160375265
Cited by
3,068
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 234 · 2025: 173 · 2024: 136 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 212 · 2021: 238 · 2020: 206 · 2019: 206 · 2018: 174 · 2017: 168 · 2016: 174 · 2015: 153 · 2014: 168 · 2013: 158 · 2012: 117
FWCI
19.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 4718 d)
Locations
  • Human Communication Research (publishedVersion)
  • EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
intercoder reliability, inter-coder agreement, content analysis, mass communication research, reporting practices, percent agreement, reliability index, coding procedures, research guidelines

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