Cited by 66Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementInnovations in Medical EducationMedical Education and Admissions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison between Inter-rater Reliability and Inter-rater Agreement in Performance Assessment

Open access
Liao, Shih Chieh, Hunt, Elizabeth A, Chen, Walter·2010·Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore

Abstract

Introduction: Over the years, performance assessment (PA) has been widely employed in medical education, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) being an excellent example. Typically, performance assessment involves multiple raters, and therefore, consistency among the scores provided by the auditors is a precondition to ensure the accuracy of the assessment. Inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability are two indices that are used to ensure such scoring consistency. This research primarily examined the relationship between inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability. Materials and Methods: This study used 3 sets of simulated data that was based on raters’ evaluation of student performance to examine the relationship between inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability. Results: Data set 1 had high inter-rater agreement but low inter-rater reliability, data set 2 had high inter-rater reliability but low inter-rater agreement, and data set 3 had high inter-rater agreement and high inter-rater reliability. Conclusion: Inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability can but do not necessarily coexist. The presence of one does not guarantee that of the other. Inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability are both important for PA. The former shows stability of scores a student receives from different raters, while the latter shows the consistence of scores across different students from different raters. Key words: Consistency, Multiple-rater, Psychometrics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.v39n8p613

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hopkins KD. Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation, 8th ed. Needham Heights: Pearson, 1998.
  2. Black P. Testing: Friend or foe? London: Falmer Press, 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liao, S. C., Hunt, E. A., & Chen, W.
Affiliations
  • China Medical University (TW)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore
Published
2010-08-15
Volume
39
Issue
8
Pages
613-618
ISSN
0304-4602 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W118576434
Cited by
65
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
China Medical University Hospital (CMUH-EDU97-11E)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Medical Education and Admissions
Keywords
inter-rater reliability, interobserver agreement, performance evaluation (human resources), OSCE, rater consistency, score stability, medical education assessment, simulated data
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Humans, Psychometrics, Statistics as Topic, Students, Medical, Task Performance and Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Statistics, Nonparametric, Validation Studies as Topic

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