Inter-rater Reliability a. The Xxxxxxxxx Group or other appropriate certifying agency will provide the same level of training to all evaluators.
Inter-rater Reliability. Lead evaluators will maintain inter-rater reliability over time and evaluators will be trained in accordance with SED procedures and processes in maintaining inter-rater reliability over time. Teacher Evaluation Process:
Inter-rater Reliability. In order to facilitate achievement of a reasonable degree of inter-rater reliability, the administration will conduct calibration exercises on an annual basis. GEEA Co- Presidents can request information about the annual calibration exercises if there is a concern or a question.
Inter-rater Reliability. Estimates of intraclass correlation coefficients for the global MITI scores and XXXXX Practitioner Score are reported in Table 3.3. These estimates suggested that inter-rater reliability was good (between 0.60 and 0.74) or excellent (>0.75) for both scales, according to previously defined thresholds (Xxxxxxxxx, 1994). Reliability was greater for MITI, where all ratings were for the 20-minute section in the middle of each recording, compared to XXXXX, where one coder rated 20-minute windows and another rated the full duration of recordings.
Inter-rater Reliability. The ability of two individuals to review and analyze the same information and come up with substantially consistent results.
Inter-rater Reliability. Evaluators will maintain inter-rater reliability. Evaluators will be trained through the Evaluator Training Program (TST BOCES) in order to maintain inter-rater reliability now and over time. Inter-rater reliability shall mean the standards and processes for conducting all aspects of the evaluation protocol (as outlined in this document) to be consistent amongst all evaluators. This shall include: Pre- Observation and Post-Observation conferences, announced and unannounced observations, documentation notes, timelines, Student Learning Objectives (SLO), goals and Teacher Improvement Plans (T.I.P.) and appeals process and all other requirements and expectations of the evaluation rubric and process.
Inter-rater Reliability. For all populations eligible for covered services under this Contract, the Contractor shall:
Inter-rater Reliability. The Contractor shall:
Inter-rater Reliability. The paper Xxxxxxxx (2012) provides an overview of tools to measure the agreement between the raters, that are called inter-rater reliability (IRR). A rater will be used here (and in the BIQMR study) as a generic term for the individuals who assign ratings in a study, such as trained research assistants. The author discusses methodological issues related to the assessment of IRR with a focus on study design, selection of appropriate statistics, and the computation, interpretation, and reporting of some commonly used IRR statistics. At first he defines IRR as the degree of agreement among two or more raters who make independent ratings about the features of a set of subjects (subjects are articles in the BIQMR study). In order to find a mathematical term for IRR, he sets Observed Score = True Score + Measurement Error, or in abbreviated symbols X = T + E. Here the Observed Score is the value of the rating of the articles, and True Score represents the article’s score that would be obtained if there was no measurement error, and the term Measurement Error is an error component because of the measurement error (it is also called noise). From the last equation it follows that Var(X) = Var(T ) + Var(E). IRR analysis aims to determine how much of the variance in the observed scores is due to variance in the true scores after the variance due to measurement error between raters has been removed IRR = Var(T ) = Var(X) − Var(E) = Var(T ) . (3.1) Var(X) Var(X) Var(T ) + Var(E) For instance, suppose an IRR estimate of 0.80 would indicate that 80% of the observed variance is due to true score variance or similarity in ratings between raters, and 20% is due to error variance or differences in ratings between raters. Because true scores and measurement errors cannot be directly accessed, the IRR as a measure of degree of agreement cannot be directly computed. Instead, true scores can be estimated by quantifying the covariance among sets of observed scores provided by different raters for the same set of subjects, where it is assumed that the shared variance between ratings approximates the value of Var(T ) and the unshared variance between ratings approximates Var(E), which allows reliability to be estimated in accordance with equation 3.1.
Inter-rater Reliability. Two physicians (raters) performed ECCA test on the same patients one week apart. The estimate for Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient of the ECCA scores from the two raters is .84 with 95% confidence interval [0.71, 0.92]. This indicates good inter-rater agreement/reliability of ECCA (Figure 5 in Appendix A).
