IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v88y2023i3d10.1007_s11336-023-09919-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Agreement Using Guessing Models and Knowledge Coefficients

Author

Listed:
  • Jonas Moss

    (BI Norwegian Business School)

Abstract

Several measures of agreement, such as the Perreault–Leigh coefficient, the $$\textsc {AC}_{1}$$ AC 1 , and the recent coefficient of van Oest, are based on explicit models of how judges make their ratings. To handle such measures of agreement under a common umbrella, we propose a class of models called guessing models, which contains most models of how judges make their ratings. Every guessing model have an associated measure of agreement we call the knowledge coefficient. Under certain assumptions on the guessing models, the knowledge coefficient will be equal to the multi-rater Cohen’s kappa, Fleiss’ kappa, the Brennan–Prediger coefficient, or other less-established measures of agreement. We provide several sample estimators of the knowledge coefficient, valid under varying assumptions, and their asymptotic distributions. After a sensitivity analysis and a simulation study of confidence intervals, we find that the Brennan–Prediger coefficient typically outperforms the others, with much better coverage under unfavorable circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonas Moss, 2023. "Measuring Agreement Using Guessing Models and Knowledge Coefficients," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1002-1025, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:88:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11336-023-09919-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-023-09919-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11336-023-09919-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11336-023-09919-4?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. Xiangen Hu & William Batchelder, 1994. "The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 21-47, March.
    2. Karl Klauer & William Batchelder, 1996. "Structural analysis of subjective categorical data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 199-239, June.
    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.
    1. Marc Jekel & Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder & Viktoriya Maydych, 2014. "Approximating rationality under incomplete information: Adaptive inferences for missing cue values based on cue-discrimination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 129-147, March.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:814-820 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Liu, Yin & Tian, Guo-Liang, 2013. "A variant of the parallel model for sample surveys with sensitive characteristics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 115-135.
    4. Dora Matzke & Conor Dolan & William Batchelder & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, 2015. "Bayesian Estimation of Multinomial Processing Tree Models with Heterogeneity in Participants and Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 205-235, March.
    5. Julia Meisters & Adrian Hoffmann & Jochen Musch, 2020. "Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:129-147 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Florian Wickelmaier & Achim Zeileis, 2016. "Using Recursive Partitioning to Account for Parameter Heterogeneity in Multinomial Processing Tree Models," Working Papers 2016-26, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    8. Abaei, Mohammad Mahdi & Hekkenberg, Robert & BahooToroody, Ahmad, 2021. "A multinomial process tree for reliability assessment of machinery in autonomous ships," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    9. Javier Revuelta, 2008. "The generalized Logit-Linear Item Response Model for Binary-Designed Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 385-405, September.
    10. Adrian Hoffmann & Julia Meisters & Jochen Musch, 2021. "Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-20, October.
    11. Quentin F. Gronau & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers & Daniel W. Heck & Dora Matzke, 2019. "A Simple Method for Comparing Complex Models: Bayesian Model Comparison for Hierarchical Multinomial Processing Tree Models Using Warp-III Bridge Sampling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(1), pages 261-284, March.
    12. Morten Moshagen & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Methodological notes on model comparisons and strategy classification: A falsificationist proposition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 814-820, December.
    13. Daniel W. Heck & Edgar Erdfelder & Pascal J. Kieslich, 2018. "Generalized Processing Tree Models: Jointly Modeling Discrete and Continuous Variables," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(4), pages 893-918, December.
    14. Steffen Nestler & Edgar Erdfelder, 2023. "Random Effects Multinomial Processing Tree Models: A Maximum Likelihood Approach," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 809-829, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agreement; Interrater reliability; AC1; Cohen’s kappa;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    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:spr:psycho:v:88:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11336-023-09919-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.