scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Intra-rater reliability

About: Intra-rater reliability is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2073 publications have been published within this topic receiving 140968 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study measures the validity and reliability of crowdsourced continuous ratings of child speech, obtained through Visual Analog Scaling, and investigates two rater-level measures of quality, individual validity and intrarater reliability.
Abstract: Perceptual ratings aggregated across multiple nonexpert listeners can be used to measure covert contrast in child speech. Online crowdsourcing provides access to a large pool of raters, but for practical purposes, researchers may wish to use smaller samples. The ratings obtained from these smaller samples may not maintain the high levels of validity seen in larger samples. This study aims to measure the validity and reliability of crowdsourced continuous ratings of child speech, obtained through Visual Analog Scaling, and to identify ways to improve these measurements. We first assess overall validity and interrater reliability for measurements obtained from a large set of raters. Second, we investigate two rater-level measures of quality, individual validity and intrarater reliability, and examine the relationship between them. Third, we show that these estimates may be used to establish guidelines for the inclusion of raters, thus impacting the quality of results obtained when smaller samples are used.

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The development of the Q-DFD provides an opportunity for ongoing collection of prevalence estimates for DRFD across Australia and demonstrates agreement with either clinical assessment or medical record.
Abstract: Community based prevalence for diabetes related foot disease (DRFD) has been poorly quantified in Australian populations. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a survey tool to facilitate collection of community based prevalence data for individuals with DRFD via telephone interview. Agreed components of DRFD were identified through an electronic literature search. Expert feedback and feedback from a population based construction sample were sought on the initial draft. Survey reliability was tested using a cohort recruited through a general practice, a hospital outpatient clinic and an outpatient podiatry clinic. Level of agreement between survey findings and either medical record or clinical assessment was evaluated. The Questionnaire for Diabetes Related Foot Disease (Q-DFD) comprised 12 questions aimed at determining presence of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PN) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD), based on self report of symptoms and/or clinical history, and self report of foot ulceration, amputation and foot deformity. Survey results for 38 from 46 participants demonstrated agreement with either clinical assessment or medical record (kappa 0.65, sensitivity 89.0%, and specificity 77.8%). Correlation for individual survey components was moderate to excellent. Inter and intrarater reliability and test re-test reliability was moderate to high for all survey domains. The development of the Q-DFD provides an opportunity for ongoing collection of prevalence estimates for DRFD across Australia.

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study reviewed referential values for thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis for radiography and photogrammetry analysis and search for information about the interrater and intrarater reliability.

17 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: A general DFR process that can be adopted and deployed with a few modifications across different industries in a way that will fit well into the overall Product Development Process is proposed.
Abstract: Design for Reliability (DFR) is not a new concept, but it has begun to receive a great deal of attention in recent years. What is DFR? What are the ingredients for designing for reliability, and what is involved in implementing DFR? Should DFR be part of a Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) program, and is DFR the same as DFSS? In this paper, we will try to answer these questions and, at the same time, we will propose a general DFR process that can be adopted and deployed with a few modifications across different industries in a way that will fit well into the overall Product Development Process.

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Shoulder internal rotation 1RM estimation appears to be reliable and accurate and Clinicians may use submaximal loads to estimate the 1RM and decrease the possibility of injury during actual 1RM strength testing.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine intrarater reliability of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) estimation for shoulder internal rotation. The accuracy of the estimated 1RM was determined by establishing the actual 1RM. Fifteen subjects were positioned supine with the shoulder in 0 degrees abduction (position 1) and prone with the shoulder in 90 degrees abduction (position 2). Subjects were placed in both testing positions and performed resisted shoulder internal rotation. A 1RM estimation equation was used to estimate shoulder internal rotation strength. After 1 week, procedures were repeated and intrarater reliability was calculated. One week after 1RM estimation procedures were completed, the accuracy of an estimated 1RM was determined by establishing an actual 1RM. The results indicated excellent intrarater reliability for position 1 (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.99) and position 2 (ICC = 0.96). The correlation coefficients for accuracy indicated excellent concurrent validation was attained for position 1 (ICC = 0.99) and position 2 (ICC = 0.97). Shoulder internal rotation 1RM estimation appears to be reliable and accurate. Clinicians may use submaximal loads to estimate the 1RM and decrease the possibility of injury during actual 1RM strength testing.

17 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Rehabilitation
46.2K papers, 776.3K citations
69% related
Ankle
30.4K papers, 687.4K citations
68% related
Systematic review
33.3K papers, 1.6M citations
68% related
Activities of daily living
18.2K papers, 592.8K citations
68% related
Validity
13.8K papers, 776K citations
67% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202342
202278
202186
202083
201986
201867