IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v9y1989i3p196-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relation of Observer Agreement to Accuracy According to a Two-receiver Signal Detection Model of Diagnosis

Author

Listed:
  • Michael F. Quinn

Abstract

A long-standing problem of medical diagnosis is why rates of observer disagreement are so high. To study this question a model of test interpretation is defined which accounts for disagreement when observers use identical diagnostic strategies. Test subjects are assigned to one of two disease classes on the basis of two parameters: the test score and A, the diagnostic certainty, a parameter analogous to signal-to-noise ratio. The rate of disagreement and the mean error rate of independent ideal observers are derived as a function of diagnostic strategy. It follows from the model that: 1) Maximization of the ratio of disagreement to error defines an optimal diagnostic strategy with advantages over maximum likelihood and Bayes diagnostic strategies. 2) Disagreement exceeds error if the sensitivity and specificity of in dependent observers exceed one-half for all A. 3) The ratio of disagreement to error can be no greater than two if test interpretation is dichotomous but can approach infinity for tricho tomous interpretation, i.e., if observers are allowed to interpret cases as indeterminate.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael F. Quinn, 1989. "Relation of Observer Agreement to Accuracy According to a Two-receiver Signal Detection Model of Diagnosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(3), pages 196-206, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:9:y:1989:i:3:p:196-206
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8900900308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X8900900308
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X8900900308?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
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:9:y:1989:i:3:p:196-206. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.