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, statalist.org 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   Lenny Lesser <lenny3200@gmail.com>
To   statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-
Date   Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:26:56 -0800

so I did the model the way Rebecca suggested and get an ICC of 0.34
(with Rator as a class)

Then I did it the way you did it and got an ICC as 0.22 (with Rator
not class, but with covariance as independent)

I'm concerned in your model the Rator is not a class/dummy variable.
Lenny

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:22 PM, JVerkuilen (Gmail)
<jvverkuilen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Psychometrics is not my field
>
> It is mine, though. ;)
>
>
> but my gut impression is that you really
>> should use the scores. The context you cite is no doubt correct, but
>> for comparing raters with each other the scores they gave are
>> essential.
>
> Yes, that's right, unless the transformation is desired to be done all
> the time, but rank transforming is then a bad idea, most likely,
> because it's massively lossy.
>
>
>  Why is skewness implied to be a problem here? It's just one
>> of the facts.
>
> It's also not really that bad once you condition on person, except for rater 4.
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index