The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Coefficients of Agreement Between Observers and Their Interpretation
Abstract
Summary: The measurement of agreement between ratings of patient symptomatology by two or more psychiatrists is discussed. It is noted that coefficients which allow for possible chance agreement are to be preferred, but they involve assumptions about the way in which chance factors may operate. Assumptions which involve prior probabilities of the incidence of a symptom appear to be too stringent, and a new coefficient, called the RE coefficient, is recommended in which chance is assumed to operate in a purely random way. Binary scales are discussed in detail, but methods of dealing with scales of wider range are also referred to.
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
Cited by
Byrt, T., Bishop, J., & Carlin, J. B. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v · Cited by 2,179
High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes
Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-m · Cited by 1,838
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
Markon, K. E., Chmielewski, M., & Miller, C. J. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0023678 · Cited by 656
Diversity of decision-making models and the measurement of interrater agreement
Uebersax, J. S. (1987) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.140 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Maxwell, A. E.
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 1977-01
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79-83
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W2167563976
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.06
- 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: Coefficients of Agreement Between Observers and Their Interpretation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1192/bjp.130.1.79
- The paper
- Maxwell, A. E. (1977). Coefficients of Agreement Between Observers and Their Interpretation. British Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.130.1.79
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.
