The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interrater Agreement Reconsidered: An Alternative to the rwg Indices
Abstract
For continuous constructs, the most frequently used index of interrater agreement (r wg(1))can be problematic. Typically, rwg(1) is estimated with the assumption that a uniform distribution represents no agreement. The authors review the limitations of this uniform nullr wg(1) index and discuss alternative methods for measuring interrater agreement. A new interrater agreement statistic,a wg(1),is proposed. The authors derive thea wg(1)statistic and demonstrate thatawg(1) is an analogue to Cohen’s kappa, an interrater agreement index for nominal data. A comparison is made between agreement estimates based on the uniformr wg(1)and a wg(1), and issues such as minimum sample size and practical significance levels are discussed. The authors close with recommendations regarding the use ofr wg(1)/rwg(J) when a uniform null is assumed,r wg(1)/rwg(J) indices that do not assume a uniform null,awg(1) / a wg(J)indices, and generalizability estimates of interrater agreement.
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.
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
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Research in Organizational Behavior
Hammer, E. R., Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (1984) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258300 · Cited by 10,806
A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY1
LAWSHE, C. H. (1975) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x · Cited by 7,313
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000) · Cited by 4,914
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 · Cited by 2,221
Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.
James, L. R. (1982) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219 · Cited by 2,139
Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751 · Cited by 1,382
Personality, affect, and behavior in groups
George, J. M. (1990) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107 · Cited by 1,372
Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal.
Feldman, J. M. (1981) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.66.2.127 · Cited by 870
Cited by
Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428106296642 · Cited by 3,608
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., & Farahnak, L. R. (2014) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-45 · Cited by 559
Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2180 · Cited by 546
Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.75.2.55 · Cited by 532
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-184
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W1963965233
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 7.00
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interrater Agreement Reconsidered: An Alternative to the rwg Indices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428105275376
- The paper
- Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005). Interrater Agreement Reconsidered: An Alternative to the rwg Indices. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105275376
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.
