Many research projects require an evaluation of the reliability of the Inter-Rater (IRR) to demonstrate consistency between the observation assessments of several coders. However, many studies use erroneous statistical methods, do not fully report the information needed to interpret their results, or do not report how ERREURS influence the performance of their subsequent analyses for hypothesis tests. This paper provides an overview of methodological issues related to the evaluation of ERREURS, with an emphasis on the design of studies, the selection of appropriate statistics and the calculation, interpretation and disclosure of some frequently used IRR statistics. Examples of calculations include SPSS and R syntaxes for Cohens Kappa calculation and intra-class correlations for IRR evaluation. In statistics, reliability between advisors (also cited under different similar names, such as the inter-rater agreement. B, inter-rated matching, reliability between observers, etc.) is the degree of agreement between the advisors. This is an assessment of the amount of homogeneity or consensus given in the evaluations of different judges. Subsequent extensions of the approach included versions that could deal with “under-credits” and ordinal scales.  These extensions converge with the intra-class correlation family (ICC), which allows us to estimate reliability for each level of measurement, from the notion (kappa) to the ordinal (or ICC) at the interval (ICC or ordinal kappa) and the ratio (ICC). There are also variations that may consider the agreement by the evaluators on a number of points (for example.B. two people agree on the rates of depression for all points of the same semi-structured interview for a case?) as well as cases of raters x (for example. B how do two or more evaluators agree on whether 30 cases have a diagnosis of depression, yes/no a nominal variable).
An analysis of the IRR was conducted to assess the extent to which coders systematically attributed categorical assessments of depression to the subjects in the study. Marginal distributions of depression assessments did not highlight prevalence or bias problems, suggesting that Cohen`s Kappa (1960) was an appropriate index of IRR (Di Eugenis-Glass, 2004). Kappa was calculated for each pair of coders, which was then calculated to provide a single IRR index (Light, 1971).