3
$\begingroup$

If k raters are asked to rate the same set of objects on a continuous or Likert scale, there is the ICC3 for measuring the inter-rater agreement.

Is there also an agreement measure, if all raters have to order the rated objects by preference?

A naive approach would be to compute the Spearman correlation for all pairs of objects and then take the average, but as this most certainly is a standard problem, I wonder whether there is a standerd solution for it.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Paired preference models, for instance, or log-linear approaches.. $\endgroup$
    – chl
    Nov 21 '20 at 15:14
  • $\begingroup$ @chl These are models that yield score values from ranking data. This is, however, not an issue in my case, because all raters rate all objects completely, and thus ML parameter estimation is not necessary. I am looking for an index that measures how well the raters agree. $\endgroup$
    – cdalitz
    Nov 21 '20 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ Something like the coefficient of concordance Kendall's W, then? $\endgroup$
    – chl
    Nov 21 '20 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ @chl Yes, thanks! Kendall's W is exactly what I was looking for. Interestingly, according to the wikipedia site it is almost the same as my suggestion of computing the average Spearman correltaion between all pairs. $\endgroup$
    – cdalitz
    Nov 21 '20 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ @chi I have treid Kendall's W, but the result does not look very reasonable in various test cases (see my answer below). Do yo know any other indices which I might try out? $\endgroup$
    – cdalitz
    Nov 26 '20 at 10:31
0
$\begingroup$

Following @chl's suggestion, I have treid Kendall's W, but the result is somewhat suprising. Although there is 80% perfect agreement among the raters, Kendall's W is only 0.36:

> library(irr)
> x <- data.frame(R1=c(1,2,3), R1=c(1,2,3), R1=c(1,2,3), R1=c(3,2,1), R1=c(1,2,3))
> x
  R1 R1.1 R1.2 R1.3 R1.4
1  1    1    1    3    1
2  2    2    2    2    2
3  3    3    3    1    3
> kendall(x)$value
[1] 0.36

Does someone know of a different index that yields a more reasonable result in this case?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ The problem comes from the fact that you're using a 3-point rating scale, which implies there's little variation around the average ratings. The same applies in the case of the ICC for agreement. I can increase you Kendall's W by simply using a larger range of responses, e.g., x <- data.frame(R1=c(1,2,5), R1=c(1,2,4), R1=c(1,2,5), R1=c(3,2,3), R1=c(1,2,5)). $\endgroup$
    – chl
    Nov 26 '20 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ Hm, as these are ranks, gaps in the responses are not possible. Maybe Kendall's W is not appropriate for rankings, but only for Likert scales? $\endgroup$
    – cdalitz
    Nov 26 '20 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ The result isn't unreasonable, and Kendall's W is appropriate. The Spearman correlation between c(1, 2, 3) and c(3, 2, 1) is -1. Out of all the choose(5, 2) = 10 Spearman correlations between the pairs of ranks, 4 of them involving your 4th rater are -1, and the remaining 6 pairs of ranks are correlated 1 with each other. We therefore find a mean Spearman correlation of .2. The Kendall's W is linearly related to the average Spearman correlation for all pairs of ranks. Given $m$ judges (here, 5), we can see $\bar{\rho}=((m*W) - 1)/(m - 1)=((5 * .36) - 1)/(5 - 1)=.2$ $\endgroup$
    – awhug
    Nov 26 '20 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ @awhug This means that the "unexpected" result can be traced back to the fact that a single dissenting rater is overrepresented in all pairs for small number of raters. I will ponder ways to circumvent this problem (I am sure, though, that someone already came up with an index that would yield 0.8 in this case). $\endgroup$
    – cdalitz
    Nov 26 '20 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, I think the sample size is partly the issue here. One rater disagreeing on the appropriate ranking of every single object compared to the other four has a big impact. It's a little hard to see how a value of 0.8 could arise - there isn't really 80% agreement among the (pairs of) raters, but rather 80% of the ranks themselves are identical. You could instead consider the correlation between the raters' ranks and a modal/criterion ranking, but this is a somewhat different question, and even then in this case would only yield an average Spearman correlation of .6. $\endgroup$
    – awhug
    Nov 26 '20 at 13:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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