0
$\begingroup$

Intraclass Correlations using Mcgraw and Wong conventions defines 5 ICC´s for single scores. I am interested in calculating both Two-way random, single measures, absolute agreement (Sometimes abbreviated as ICC 2.1A) and Two-way random, single measures, consistency (Sometimes abbreviated as ICC 2.1C).

Link to Wikipedia page with overview.

The first(ICC 2.1A) is easy as several packages (e.g. "irr", "rel", "psysch") support this:

Two-way random, single measures, absolute agreement (ICC 2.1A)

library(irr)
icc(ratings, model = c("twoway"),
type = c("agreement"),
unit = c("single"), r0 = 0, conf.level = 0.95)

But I am unsure about how to calculate the Two-way random, single measures, consistency. I read the package helpfiles as if the packages support Two-way mixed, single measures, consistency (ICC 3.1C), but not 2.1C.

That is, I think the below code gives me ICC 3.1C and not 2.1C 

library(irr)
icc(ratings, model = c("twoway"),
type = c("consistency"),
unit = c("single"), r0 = 0, conf.level = 0.95)

Can anyone help me either find a package that calculates Two-way random, single measures, consistency or alternatively guide me on how to calculate it using a mixed model.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Wiki link is dead. Could you update it? $\endgroup$
    – keiv.fly
    Commented Aug 15, 2018 at 7:17
  • $\begingroup$ In irr icc calculates conformance by default. You can change it by using type parameter. $\endgroup$
    – keiv.fly
    Commented Aug 15, 2018 at 7:37
  • $\begingroup$ How would your code look if you wanted to calculate ICC2.1, consistency? I think icc(ratings, model = c("twoway"),type = c("consistency"), unit = c("single"), r0 = 0, conf.level = 0.95) will give 3.1, consistency, but maybe I am mistaken. $\endgroup$
    – Steen Harsted
    Commented Aug 15, 2018 at 7:53
  • $\begingroup$ According to stats.stackexchange.com/questions/258546/… the numerical result of 2,1 and 3,1 is the same. $\endgroup$
    – keiv.fly
    Commented Aug 15, 2018 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I think you are right. quoteing straight from the McGraw and Wong article: "Not only are ICC calculation formulas the same for random and mixed effect models, so too are the confidence intervals and test statistics". It seems weird to me though that the the two different ICC's can be interpreted so differently given that their numerical result will always be the same. $\endgroup$
    – Steen Harsted
    Commented Aug 15, 2018 at 9:33

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0
$\begingroup$

According to Which inter-rater equation should I use; ICC(2,1) or ICC(3,1)? and, as you pointed out, the McGraw and Wong article the results of ICC(2,1) and ICC(3,1) are the same. So the following code that you mentioned will give you ICC(2,1) and ICC(3,1) consistency:

library(irr)
icc(ratings, model = c("twoway"),
type = c("consistency"),
unit = c("single"), r0 = 0, conf.level = 0.95)
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.