Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Review

Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic)

Thomas McGinn, Peter C. Wyer, Thomas B. Newman, Sheri Keitz, Rosanne Leipzig, Gordon Guyatt for and ; The Evidence-Based Medicine Teaching Tips Working Group
CMAJ November 23, 2004 171 (11) 1369-1373; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1031981
Thomas McGinn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter C. Wyer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas B. Newman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sheri Keitz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rosanne Leipzig
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gordon Guyatt for
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Applicability of �Tips for teachers of EBM for Kappa statistics�: an Italian experience
    Luca Vignatelli
    Posted on: 30 June 2005
  • Kappa for Continuous Variables
    G. Michael Allan
    Posted on: 04 January 2005
  • The Kappa Statistic
    David N. Juurlink
    Posted on: 30 November 2004
  • An Alternative Method for Calculating Chance Agreement and Kappa
    Christopher R. Carpenter
    Posted on: 29 November 2004
  • Posted on: (30 June 2005)
    Page navigation anchor for Applicability of �Tips for teachers of EBM for Kappa statistics�: an Italian experience
    Applicability of �Tips for teachers of EBM for Kappa statistics�: an Italian experience
    • Luca Vignatelli

    Dear Sir, we greatly appreciated the series of articles “Tips for learners of EBM” [1], and the web extension “Tips for teachers”, published by your journal. We recently applied the three-part teaching model reported in the third article (“Understanding and calculating kappa” [2]), during a two-day course on appraising and designing diagnostic studies, and found it reliable and useful for the monitoring of retention of ka...

    Show More

    Dear Sir, we greatly appreciated the series of articles “Tips for learners of EBM” [1], and the web extension “Tips for teachers”, published by your journal. We recently applied the three-part teaching model reported in the third article (“Understanding and calculating kappa” [2]), during a two-day course on appraising and designing diagnostic studies, and found it reliable and useful for the monitoring of retention of kappa statistics concepts by 13 learners (9 clinicians, 3 radiologists, 1 pathologist). This activity is part a programme of disseminating basic and advanced EBM tools for residents at a large Italian hospital (S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna). From 2002 to 2005, 170 MDs out of 877 attended the three-day basic course and 23 MDs attended the advanced courses (on systematic reviews, diagnostic studies, RCTs). The teaching team comprised fifteen clinicians with epidemiological and EBM teaching expertise. With respect to the scores in the original field-testing [2], the performances of the three tips, according to the anonymous evaluation of our 13 learners using a 0-10 scale, obtained higher scoring for all domains of tip 1 (“understanding kappa”: scores of relevance 8.3, clarity of exposition 8.2 and understanding 8.0), about the same for the relevance of tips 2 (“calculating kappa”: score 8.2) and 3 (“calculating chance agreement”: 8.2), and lower, but on average satisfactory scores for the clarity of exposition and understanding of tip 2 (both 7.8) and tip 3 (6.9 and 6.7). The observation of 4 learners out of 13 with insufficient understanding of tip 3 suggested that the concepts and examples should be re-explained at the end of the same course.

    Luca Vignatelli*, Benilde Cosmi, Piero Mikus, Donatella Santini, Roberto D’Alessandro for the S.Orsola-Malpighi Group for the Dissemination of EBM. * corresponding author: Department of Neurological Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy; email: vigna@interfree.it

    References 1. Wyer PC, Keitz S, Hatala R, Hayward R, Barratt A, Montori V, Wooltorton E, Guyatt G. Tips for learning and teaching evidence-based medicine: introduction to the series. CMAJ, 2004;171(4):347-8. 2. McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, Keitz s, Leipzig R, Guyatt G, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Teaching Tips Working Group. Tips for teachers of evidence-based medicine: 3. Understanding and calculating kappa. CMAJ, 2004; 171 (11): www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/11/1369/DC1.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (4 January 2005)
    Page navigation anchor for Kappa for Continuous Variables
    Kappa for Continuous Variables
    • G. Michael Allan

    Dear Thomas McGinn, Peter Wyer and co-authors,

    As a teacher of basic skills in EBM, I have appreciated the CMAJ articles offered thus far. I was happy to see the information on Kappa, particularly regarding the calculation of chance agreement and Table 3.

    Unfortunately, the information I have read on Kappa always deals with dichotomous variables like positive or negative mammogram or Murphy’s sign....

    Show More

    Dear Thomas McGinn, Peter Wyer and co-authors,

    As a teacher of basic skills in EBM, I have appreciated the CMAJ articles offered thus far. I was happy to see the information on Kappa, particularly regarding the calculation of chance agreement and Table 3.

    Unfortunately, the information I have read on Kappa always deals with dichotomous variables like positive or negative mammogram or Murphy’s sign. In cases of more continuous variables like JVP, how is agreement compared and Kappa calculated? A very simple explanation will suffice.

    Thank you, G. Michael Allan

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (30 November 2004)
    Page navigation anchor for The Kappa Statistic
    The Kappa Statistic
    • David N. Juurlink

    To the Editor:

    In their excellent overview of a common statistical measure of agreement, Thomas McGinn and colleagues suggest in Table 1 that values for the kappa statistic range from 0 to 1.(1) However, a negative value of kappa is possible.(2) Although unusual in practice, a negative kappa statistic results when agreement occurs less often than predicted by chance alone. This may indicate genuine disagreeme...

    Show More

    To the Editor:

    In their excellent overview of a common statistical measure of agreement, Thomas McGinn and colleagues suggest in Table 1 that values for the kappa statistic range from 0 to 1.(1) However, a negative value of kappa is possible.(2) Although unusual in practice, a negative kappa statistic results when agreement occurs less often than predicted by chance alone. This may indicate genuine disagreement, or it may reflect a problem in the application of a diagnostic test. Readers and researchers who encounter a negative kappa statistic should be aware of its implications, and not blame mathematical error, copyediting typos, or computer gnomes for the finding.

    David N. Juurlink, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto

    Allan S. Detsky, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto

    References

    1. McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, Keitz S, Leipzig R, For GG. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). CMAJ 004;171:1369-73. 2. Kramer MS, Feinstein AR. Clinical biostatistics. LIV. The biostatistics of concordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;29:111-23.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (29 November 2004)
    Page navigation anchor for An Alternative Method for Calculating Chance Agreement and Kappa
    An Alternative Method for Calculating Chance Agreement and Kappa
    • Christopher R. Carpenter

    First, I would like to thank the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Evidence-Based Teaching Tips Working Group for a wonderfully useful series for those of us teaching basic concepts to residents and other physicians. Article 3 in the series, "Measures of Observer Variability (Kappa Statistics)"(1) contained a couple of points to which I hope to contribute based upon my experiences teaching at various residency Journa...

    Show More

    First, I would like to thank the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Evidence-Based Teaching Tips Working Group for a wonderfully useful series for those of us teaching basic concepts to residents and other physicians. Article 3 in the series, "Measures of Observer Variability (Kappa Statistics)"(1) contained a couple of points to which I hope to contribute based upon my experiences teaching at various residency Journal Clubs and lecture series.

    1) Whereas the Working Group had students construct the 2 x 2 tables and calculate Kappa from successively higher rates of positive calls (Teaching Tip 3), I have instead given students the raw data from actual small studies (N <25) then asked them to construct the 2 x 2 table and calculate first actual agreement and then chance agreement using the multiplication rule(2). One is able to utilize the multiplication rule to calculate joint probability if two different events are independent of one another. Most situations that consumers of the medical literature will encounter will involve analyzing the numbers provided in various research data forms and determining whether the level of agreement is both acceptable and consistent with the data presented. Rarely will it involve assigning a level of agreement and asking the reader to calculate a Kappa. Therefore, I feel the method described here might make a valuable Teaching Tip 4 as another means to calculate chance agreement and Kappa using more realistic values.

    For example, our institution recently implemented the Emergency Severity Index(3) (ESI) for nursing triage. Given a random sampling of 25 patients from Month 1 using the nurse administrator’s ESI score as the second assessment, I had the residents compare Triage scores 1 or 2 with 3, 4, or 5 between the two nurses. The resulting 2 x 2 table and calculation of chance agreement were completed as demonstrated below:

    Your 2 x 2 Table should look like this:

     
    Triage Nurse
      High Risk Lower Risk Admin Totals
    Nurse Admin      
    High Risk 9 2 11
    Lower Risk 1 13 14
    Triage Nurse Total 10 15 25

    Kappa = [(Observed - Expected agreement) / (1 - Expected agreement)]

    Nurse Admin said high risk 11/25 = 0.44
    Triage said high risk 10/25 = 0.40

    Nurse Admin said lower risk 14/25 = 0.56
    Triage said lower risk 15/25 = 0.60

    Observed agreement = (9 + 13) / 25 = 0.88

    Expected agreement = [Chance high risk] + [Chance lower risk]

    Chance high risk = (0.44) * (0.40) = 0.176
    Chance lower risk = (0.56) * (0.60) = 0.336

    So Expected agreement by chance alone = 0.176 + 0.336 = 0.512

    Kappa = (0.88 - 0.512) / (1 - 0.512) = 0.368/0.488 = 0.75

    2) Table 1 in both the Tips for Teachers and the Tips for Learners papers reference Maclure’s work(4)on κ as a source of the qualitative classification of κ. My review of this paper did not reveal any attempt to qualitatively assess κ, but at least three sources have done so including Altman,(5) Fleiss,(6) and Byrt.(7) In my experience the most widely utilized description for κ is the latter who proposed the following guidelines for interpreting kappa values(7)

    0.93-1.0 Excellent Agreement
    0.81-0.92 Very good agreement
    0.61-0.80 Good agreement
    0.41-0.60 Fair Agreement
    0.21-0.40 Slight Agreement
    0.01-0.20 Poor Agreement
    ≤ 0 No Agreement

    References

    1) McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, Keitz S, Leipzig R, Guyatt G. Tips for teachers of evidence-based medicine: 3. Understanding and calculating kappa. CMAJ 2004; 171: Online 1-8.
    2) Dawson B, Trapp RG. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001, 66-67, 115-117.
    3) Wuerz RC, Milne LW, Eitel DR, Travers D, Gilboy N. Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument. Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7: 236-242.
    4) Maclure M, Willett WC. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 126: 161-169.
    5) Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Students. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
    6) Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wilen and Sons, 1981: 218.
    7) Byrt T. How good is that agreement? Epidemiology 1996; 7: 561.


    Christopher R. Carpenter, MD
    Assistant Professor
    Division of Emergency Medicine
    Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
    St. Louis, MO

     

     

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 171 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 171, Issue 11
23 Nov 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic)
Thomas McGinn, Peter C. Wyer, Thomas B. Newman, Sheri Keitz, Rosanne Leipzig, Gordon Guyatt for
CMAJ Nov 2004, 171 (11) 1369-1373; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1031981

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic)
Thomas McGinn, Peter C. Wyer, Thomas B. Newman, Sheri Keitz, Rosanne Leipzig, Gordon Guyatt for
CMAJ Nov 2004, 171 (11) 1369-1373; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1031981
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Clinician learners' objectives
    • Tip 1: Defining the importance of kappa
    • Tip 2: Calculating kappa
    • Tip 3: Calculating chance agreement
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Tips for learning and teaching evidence-based medicine: introduction to the series
  • Correction
  • Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results
  • Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat
  • Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 2. Measures of precision (confidence intervals)
  • Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 5. The effect of spectrum of disease on the performance of diagnostic tests
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A systematic review of medical and clinical research landscapes and quality in Malaysia and Indonesia [REALQUAMI]: the review protocol
  • Changes in medication administration error rates associated with the introduction of electronic medication systems in hospitals: a multisite controlled before and after study
  • An Interrater Reliability Study of Pulmonary Function Assessment With a Portable Spirometer
  • Updated meta-analysis on prevention of venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients
  • Comparison of informal caregiver and named nurse assessment of symptoms in elderly patients dying in hospital using the palliative outcome scale
  • Paediatric advance care planning survey: a cross-sectional examination of congruence and discordance between adolescents with HIV/AIDS and their families
  • Most elite athletes return to competition following operative management of meniscal tears: a systematic review
  • The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in hip arthroscopy is under-reported and lacks evidence-based guidelines: a systematic review and survey
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a review protocol
  • Effects of advanced life support versus basic life support on the mortality rates of patients with trauma in prehospital settings: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Effectiveness of a 'Do not interrupt bundled intervention to reduce interruptions during medication administration: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility study
  • A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of social network interventions in type 2 diabetes
  • Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement following slipped capital femoral epiphysis: A systematic review
  • Answering medical questions at the point of care: a cross-sectional study comparing rapid decisions based on PubMed and Epistemonikos searches with evidence-based recommendations developed with the GRADE approach
  • Prospective validation of a clinical decision rule to identify patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain who can safely be removed from cardiac monitoring
  • Athletic groin pain: a systematic review of surgical diagnoses, investigations and treatment
  • Safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid in bleeding paediatric trauma patients: a systematic review protocol
  • Return to Work and Sport Following High Tibial Osteotomy: A Systematic Review
  • Early evidence reports positive outcomes after osteochondral grafts and chondrocyte transplantation in the hip: a systematic review
  • Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review
  • Use of heparins in patients with cancer: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials study protocol
  • Childhood Cancer Mortality in India: Direct Estimates From a Nationally Representative Survey of Childhood Deaths
  • No difference in outcome between early versus delayed weight-bearing following microfracture surgery of the hip, knee or ankle: a systematic review of outcomes and complications
  • Expanding the scope of Critical Care Rapid Response Teams: a feasible approach to identify adverse events. A prospective observational cohort
  • Non-visible versus visible haematuria and bladder cancer risk: a study of electronic records in primary care
  • Computed tomography to assess risk of death in acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis
  • The Correlation Between Esophageal and Abdominal Pressures in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery
  • Determining the frequency and preventability of adverse drug reaction-related admissions to an Irish University Hospital: a cross-sectional study
  • Periprocedural Heparin Bridging in Patients Receiving Vitamin K Antagonists: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bleeding and Thromboembolic Rates
  • Authors response
  • Errors in the administration of intravenous medications in hospital and the role of correct procedures and nurse experience
  • Bedside Screening for Fistula Stenosis Should Be Tailored to the Site of the Arteriovenous Anastomosis
  • In Search of an Optimal Bedside Screening Program for Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis
  • Homocysteine in Vascular Behcet Disease: A Meta-Analysis
  • Visual Assessment of the Spine Bruckel Instrument, a Novel Status Tool to Reflect Appearance of the Spine in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis
  • JAK2V617F mutation for the early diagnosis of Ph- myeloproliferative neoplasms in patients with venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis
  • Relationship Between Preventability of Death After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and All-Cause Risk-Adjusted Mortality Rates
  • Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-Analysis
  • Accuracy of Physical Examination in the Detection of Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis
  • Erythropoietin-receptor agonists in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
  • Discordance in Perceptions of Barriers to Diabetes Care Between Patients and Primary Care and Secondary Care
  • Thrombophilic abnormalities, oral contraceptives, and risk of cerebral vein thrombosis: a meta-analysis
  • Not Working 3 Years After Breast Cancer: Predictors in a Population-Based Study
  • Reliability of the Whiff Test in Clinical Practice
  • Teaching evidence-based practice on foot
  • Work absence after breast cancer diagnosis: a population-based study
  • Teaching evidence-based practice on foot
  • Kappa statistic
  • Kappa statistic
  • Kappa statistic
  • Kappa statistic
  • Editor's note
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Diagnosis and acute management of migraine
  • Transient ischemic attack and minor stroke: diagnosis, risk stratification and management
  • Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: effective and underused
Show more Review

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire