IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ijbist/v11y2015i1p125-133n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying an Agreement Study

Author

Listed:
  • Liao Jason J. Z.

    (Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, One Health Plaza, East Hanover, NJ 07936, USA)

Abstract

In medical and other related sciences, clinical or experimental measurements usually serve as a basis for diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, and performance evaluations. Examples can be assessing the reliability of multiple raters (or measurement methods), assessing the suitability for tumor evaluation of using a local laboratory or a central laboratory in a randomized clinical trial (RCT), validating surrogate endpoints in a study, determining that the important outcome measurements are interchangeable among the evaluators in an RCT. Any elegant study design cannot overcome the damage by unreliable measurement. Many methods have been developed to assess the agreement of two measurement methods. However, there is little attention to quantify how good the agreement of two measurement methods is. In this paper, similar to the type I error and the power in describing a hypothesis testing, we propose quantifying an agreement assessment using two rates: the discordance rate and the tolerance probability. This approach is demonstrated through examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Liao Jason J. Z., 2015. "Quantifying an Agreement Study," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 125-133, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:11:y:2015:i:1:p:125-133:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2014-0030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2014-0030
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ijb-2014-0030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liao Jason J. Z. & Capen Robert, 2011. "An Improved Bland-Altman Method for Concordance Assessment," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:11:y:2015:i:1:p:125-133:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.