Updated Guidelines on Selecting an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for Interrater Reliability, With Applications to Incomplete Observational Designs

• Published in: Psychological methods 2024-10, Vol.29 (5), p.967-979
• Main Authors: ten Hove, Debby, Jorgensen, Terrence D., van der Ark, L. Andries
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Experimental Design; Human; Interrater Reliability; Measurement; Observation Methods; Statistical Correlation; Theories
• ISSN: 1082-989X; 1939-1463; 1939-1463
• DOI: 10.1037/met0000516

Several intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) are available to assess the interrater reliability (IRR) of observational measurements. Selecting an ICC is complicated, and existing guidelines have three major limitations. First, they do not discuss incomplete designs, in which raters partially vary across subjects. Second, they provide no coherent perspective on the error variance in an ICC, clouding the choice between the available coefficients. Third, the distinction between fixed or random raters is often misunderstood. Based on generalizability theory (GT), we provide updated guidelines on selecting an ICC for IRR, which are applicable to both complete and incomplete observational designs. We challenge conventional wisdom about ICCs for IRR by claiming that raters should seldom (if ever) be considered fixed. Also, we clarify how to interpret ICCs in the case of unbalanced and incomplete designs. We explain four choices a researcher needs to make when selecting an ICC for IRR, and guide researchers through these choices by means of a flowchart, which we apply to three empirical examples from clinical and developmental domains. In the Discussion, we provide guidance in reporting, interpreting, and estimating ICCs, and propose future directions for research into the ICCs for IRR. Translational Abstract Several intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) are available to assess the interrater reliability (IRR) of observational measurements. Selecting an ICC is complicated, and existing guidelines have three major limitations. First, they do not discuss incomplete designs, in which raters partially vary across subjects. Second, they provide no coherent perspective on the error variance in an ICC, clouding the choice between the available coefficients. Third, the distinction between fixed or random raters is often misunderstood. Based on generalizability theory (GT), we provide updated guidelines on selecting an ICC for IRR, which are applicable to both complete and incomplete observational designs. We challenge conventional wisdom about ICCs for IRR by claiming that raters should seldom (if ever) be considered fixed. Also, we clarify how to interpret ICCs in the case of unbalanced and incomplete designs. We explain four choices a researcher needs to make when selecting an ICC for IRR, and guide researchers through these choices by means of a flowchart, which we apply to three empirical examples from clinical and developmental domains. In the Discussion,