Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-

From   Rebecca Pope <>
Subject   Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-
Date   Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:08:38 -0600

I don't think you've got the correct syntax for -xtmixed- if you are
trying to duplicate ANOVA results, which is the type of analysis that
-icc- appears to conduct (documentation is still limited, so I won't
swear to anything).

Use this syntax for -xtmixed-:
xtmixed rank i.Application || _all: R.Rater, reml var

-estat icc- is not a valid post-estimation command after this
specification. However, you can just use the definition that ICC =

You might also want to take a look at which will give you
instructions for using -xtmixed- to conduct ANOVA-type analyses (using
Stata 10, so you'll need to modify somewhat).


On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Lenny Lesser <> wrote:
> I have 4 raters that gave a score of 0-100 on 11 smartphone applications.
> The data is skewed right, as they all got low scores.  I'm using the
> ranks (within an individual) instead of the actual scores.  I want to
> know the correlation in ranking between the different raters.
> I've tried the two commands:
> -xtmixed rank Application || Rater: , reml
> -estat icc
> (icc=0.19)
> and
> -icc rank Rater Application, mixed consistency
> (icc=0.34)
> They give me two different answers. Which one is correct?
> Next, we found out that rater 4 was off the charts, and we want to
> eliminate her and rerun the analysis. When we do this we get wacky
> ICCs.  In the first method we get an ICC of 2e-26.  In the 2nd method
> (-icc), we get -.06.  Eliminating any of the other raters gives us
> ICCs close to the original ICC.  Why are we getting such a crazy
> number when we eliminate this 4th rater?
> I'm guessing this might be instability in the model, but I'm not sure
> how to get around it.
> Lenny
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *
*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index