Recent Issues Regarding rWG, rWG, rWG(J), and rWG(J)
Recent Issues Regarding rWG, rWG, rWG(J), and rWG(J)
复制标题
关于 rWG、rWG、rWG(J) 和 rWG(J) 的最新问题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Lindell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
James M. LeBreton;L. James;M. Lindell
Lindell和Brandt最近的一篇文章对James、Demaree和Wolf的评委间协议指数rwG和rwG(J)的使用提出了两个问题。首先，他们指出，多项rwG(J)方程在数学上等同于将rwG插入Spearman-Brown预测公式，并质疑应用为可靠性指标开发的公式是否也适用于一致性指数。其次，他们质疑詹姆斯等人的建议是否合适。S建议用零取代已有的rwg负值。本文通过证明rwG(J)可以独立于Spearman-Brown预测公式导出，以及当评分者的子组之间存在系统性分歧时，可以通过重新参数化作为数据基础的结构方程来避免rwG(J)的负值。
A recent article by Lindell and Brandt raised two concerns regarding the use of James, Demaree, and Wolf’s interrater agreement indices rWG and rWG(J). First, they noted that the multi-item rWG(J) equation is mathematically equivalent to inserting rWG into the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula and questioned whether applying a formula developed for a reliability index was also appropriate for an agreement index. Second, they questioned the appropriateness of James et al.’s suggestion of replacing obtained negative values of rWG with zeros. This article addresses these concerns by demonstrating that rWG(J) can be derived independently from the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula and that negative values of rWG can be avoided by reparameterizing the structural equation underlying the data when there is systematic disagreement between subgroups of raters.