Inter-rater agreement for Dichotomous data (Relevant and Observable)

We want to determine the agreement for single Facets for single Tasks, irrespective of other facets or tasks. It is not possible to calculate any forms of kappa or alpha for single items, and comparisons across facets and tasks would not be relevant for answering the research question. Therefore, the best approach is to report the proportion of raters in agreement.

Presentation

Presentation relevant facets

This table presents the 15 most relevant facets on the Presentation task as well as the number of raters who responded that the facet was relevant (in lieu of % agreement):

Relevance of NEO Facets on Presentation Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Pres_Assertiveness_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Pres_SelfEfficacy_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Pres_Cooperation_Relevant 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Pres_Friendliness_Relevant 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Pres_Sympathy_Relevant 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7
Pres_Anxiety_Relevant 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Pres_Liberalism_Relevant 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 7
Pres_Gregariousness_Relevant 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Pres_Cheerfulnessful_Relevant 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 6
Pres_Morality_Relevant 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 6
Pres_Vulnerability_Relevant 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 6
Pres_Emotionality_Relevant 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Pres_Intellect_Relevant 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 6
Pres_Altruism_Relevant 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5
Pres_Modesty_Relevant 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

Presentation observable facets

This table presents the 15 most observable facets on the Presentation task:

Observability of NEO Facets on Presentation Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Pres_Assertiveness_Observable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Pres_Gregariousness_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Pres_Cheerfulnessful_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Pres_SelfEfficacy_Observable 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8
Pres_Friendliness_Observable 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Pres_Cooperation_Observable 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Pres_Sympathy_Observable 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Pres_Anxiety_Observable 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Pres_Altruism_Observable 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 6
Pres_Modesty_Observable 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Pres_Depression_Observable 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 6
Pres_SelfConsciousness_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Pres_Vulnerability_Observable 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Pres_Emotionality_Observable 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Pres_Orderliness_Observable 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 5

Presentation optimal levels

This table presents the average of optimal level ratings for the presentation task.

Optimal Level of Relevant NEO Facets on Presentation Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_mean
Pres_Friendliness_OptLvl NA 4 4 5 NA 4 5 4 4 4.285714
Pres_Assertiveness_OptLvl 6 6 5 6 4 6 5 6 6 5.555556
Pres_Cooperation_OptLvl 4 NA 4 5 6 5 6 6 2 4.750000
Pres_Sympathy_OptLvl 6 6 4 4 NA 5 5 5 1 4.500000
Pres_SelfEfficacy_OptLvl 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 4 5.555556
Pres_Anxiety_OptLvl NA 5 3 1 NA 1 2 1 1 2.000000

The optimal level data is Likert scale ordinal/interval. Therefore, it can be analysed using Kendall’s W, which is a correlation among raters. It is also possible to use an ICC.

ICC used a two-way random effects model based on the average of ratings. The ICC here reflects good inter-rater reliability!

##  Average Score Intraclass Correlation
## 
##    Model: twoway 
##    Type : consistency 
## 
##    Subjects = 6 
##      Raters = 9 
##    ICC(C,9) = 0.875
## 
##  F-Test, H0: r0 = 0 ; H1: r0 > 0 
##     F(5,40) = 8.01 , p = 2.65e-05 
## 
##  95%-Confidence Interval for ICC Population Values:
##   0.637 < ICC < 0.98

Group Discussion

Group Discussion: Relevance

Relevance of NEO Facets for Group Discussion Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Grp_Friendliness_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Grp_Assertiveness_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Grp_Cooperation_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Grp_Gregariousness_Relevant 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Grp_Modesty_Relevant 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7
Grp_AchievementStriving_Relevant 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Grp_Anxiety_Relevant 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Grp_Intellect_Relevant 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Grp_SelfEfficacy_Relevant 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6
Grp_SelfConsciousness_Relevant 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Grp_Anger_Relevant 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5
Grp_Vulnerability_Relevant 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5
Grp_Imagination_Relevant 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 5
Grp_Cheerfulness_Relevant 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4
Grp_Trust_Relevant 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4

Group Discussion: Observability

Observability of NEO Facets on Group Discussion Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Grp_Friendliness_Observable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Grp_Gregariousness_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Grp_Assertiveness_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Grp_Cooperation_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Grp_Anxiety_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Grp_Cheerfulness_Observable 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Grp_Modesty_Observable 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Grp_SelfEfficacy_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
Grp_Anger_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Grp_Intellect_Observable 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6
Grp_Morality_Observable 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 5
Grp_AchievementStriving_Observable 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5
Grp_SelfConsciousness_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 5
Grp_Vulnerability_Observable 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5
Grp_Trust_Observable 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 4

Group Discussion: Optimal level

Optimal Level of Relevant NEO Facets on Group Discussion Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_mean
Grp_Friendliness_OptLvl 5 6 4 4 6 5 5 4 5 4.888889
Grp_Gregariousness_OptLvl NA 6 NA 4 6 6 6 5 5 5.428571
Grp_Assertiveness_OptLvl 6 6 4 6 5 5 6 5 6 5.444444
Grp_Cooperation_OptLvl 6 2 3 3 3 4 5 3 6 3.888889
Grp_Modesty_OptLvl 6 3 3 2 NA 2 4 2 1 2.875000
Grp_AchievementStriving_OptLvl 6 NA NA 6 5 5 5 5 6 5.428571
Grp_Anxiety_OptLvl NA 4 NA 1 2 1 2 1 1 1.714286
Grp_Intellect_OptLvl 6 6 NA 4 6 5 NA 6 4 5.285714
##  Average Score Intraclass Correlation
## 
##    Model: twoway 
##    Type : consistency 
## 
##    Subjects = 8 
##      Raters = 9 
##    ICC(C,9) = 0.806
## 
##  F-Test, H0: r0 = 0 ; H1: r0 > 0 
##     F(7,56) = 5.16 , p = 0.000141 
## 
##  95%-Confidence Interval for ICC Population Values:
##   0.511 < ICC < 0.955

Critique

Critique: Relevance

Relevance of NEO Facets for Critique Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Crit_Assertiveness_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Crit_Anger_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Crit_Friendliness_Relevant 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Crit_Altruism_Relevant 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Crit_Cooperation_Relevant 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8
Crit_Dutifulness_Relevant 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Crit_Morality_Relevant 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Crit_Cautiousness_Relevant 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Crit_Anxiety_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 7
Crit_Sympathy_Relevant 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Crit_Cheerfulness_Relevant 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5
Crit_SelfEfficacy_Relevant 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5
Crit_Orderliness_Relevant 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5
Crit_AchievementStriving_Relevant 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 5
Crit_SelfConsciousness_Relevant 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 5

Critique: Observability

Observability of NEO Facets on Critique Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Crit_Anger_Observable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Crit_Assertiveness_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Crit_Altruism_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Crit_Cooperation_Observable 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8
Crit_Anxiety_Observable 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8
Crit_Friendliness_Observable 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Crit_Sympathy_Observable 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Crit_Dutifulness_Observable 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Crit_Cheerfulness_Observable 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 6
Crit_Orderliness_Observable 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 6
Crit_SelfConsciousness_Observable 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6
Crit_Vulnerability_Observable 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 6
Crit_SelfEfficacy_Observable 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 5
Crit_AchievementStriving_Observable 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5
Crit_SelfDiscipline_Observable 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5

Critique: Optimal level

Optimal Level of Relevant NEO Facets on Critique Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_mean
Crit_Friendliness_OptLvl NA 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 4.125
Crit_Assertiveness_OptLvl 4 6 4 5 4 5 5 6 6 5.000
Crit_Altruism_OptLvl NA 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.625
Crit_Cooperation_OptLvl 4 1 3 6 NA 4 6 3 2 3.625
Crit_Dutifulness_OptLvl 6 5 NA 5 6 6 4 5 3 5.000
Crit_Anger_OptLvl 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 2.000

The ICC is lower here likely because NA values are recoded as 0.

##  Average Score Intraclass Correlation
## 
##    Model: twoway 
##    Type : consistency 
## 
##    Subjects = 6 
##      Raters = 9 
##    ICC(C,9) = 0.734
## 
##  F-Test, H0: r0 = 0 ; H1: r0 > 0 
##     F(5,40) = 3.75 , p = 0.00703 
## 
##  95%-Confidence Interval for ICC Population Values:
##   0.226 < ICC < 0.957

Teaching task

Teaching: Relevance

Relevance of NEO Facets for Teaching Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Teach_Friendliness_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Teach_Assertiveness_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Teach_Cheerfulness_Relevant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Teach_Altruism_Relevant 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Teach_Modesty_Relevant 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Teach_Intellect_Relevant 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
Teach_Cooperation_Relevant 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Teach_Anger_Relevant 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 6
Teach_Gregariousness_Relevant 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5
Teach_Sympathy_Relevant 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5
Teach_SelfEfficacy_Relevant 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 5
Teach_Orderliness_Relevant 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 5
Teach_SelfDiscipline_Relevant 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 5
Teach_Imagination_Relevant 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5
Teach_ActivityLevel_Relevant 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4

Teaching: Observability

Observability of NEO Facets on Teaching Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_sum
Teach_Friendliness_Observable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Teach_Cheerfulness_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Teach_Anger_Observable 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Teach_Altruism_Observable 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Teach_Cooperation_Observable 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Teach_Gregariousness_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Teach_Assertiveness_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
Teach_Modesty_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 5
Teach_Sympathy_Observable 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5
Teach_SelfConsciousness_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 5
Teach_Intellect_Observable 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 5
Teach_Orderliness_Observable 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4
Teach_Anxiety_Observable 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 4
Teach_Depression_Observable 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
Teach_Vulnerability_Observable 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4

Teaching: Optimal level

Optimal Levels of most relevant NEO Facets for Teaching Task
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 row_mean
Teach_Friendliness_OptLvl 6 6 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 5.222222
Teach_Assertiveness_OptLvl 4 5 2 5 4 4 5 4 5 4.222222
Teach_Cheerfulness_OptLvl 5 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 5 4.888889
Teach_Altruism_OptLvl NA 5 4 6 NA 5 5 6 5 5.142857
Teach_Modesty_OptLvl 4 NA 4 3 NA 4 4 5 3 3.857143
Teach_Intellect_OptLvl 6 5 NA 6 4 NA 4 5 6 5.142857

The NA values in the last 3 facets lead to a low ICC here. The last 3 facets each had two NA values, which I transformed to 0 in order to run the ICC on all the data (it will casewise delete otherwise).

##  Average Score Intraclass Correlation
## 
##    Model: twoway 
##    Type : consistency 
## 
##    Subjects = 6 
##      Raters = 9 
##    ICC(C,9) = 0.558
## 
##  F-Test, H0: r0 = 0 ; H1: r0 > 0 
##     F(5,40) = 2.26 , p = 0.0666 
## 
##  95%-Confidence Interval for ICC Population Values:
##   -0.284 < ICC < 0.928

Only analysing the top 3 (which had unanimous agreement on the Relevant question) gives a much better ICC.

##  Average Score Intraclass Correlation
## 
##    Model: twoway 
##    Type : consistency 
## 
##    Subjects = 3 
##      Raters = 9 
##    ICC(C,9) = 0.821
## 
##  F-Test, H0: r0 = 0 ; H1: r0 > 0 
##     F(2,16) = 5.6 , p = 0.0143 
## 
##  95%-Confidence Interval for ICC Population Values:
##   0.163 < ICC < 0.995