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]

From |
Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

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

Date |
Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:49:34 +0000 |

No one seems interested in this suggestion. But it is well to know what patterns do or do not exist before you start quantifying them. This is just to underline that repeating the graphs with ranks underlines how much information is thereby discarded and that while such graphs may not work well with many more raters and/or scores, they do work well here. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote: > A scatter plot matrix is instructive. > > Warning: destroys your data. > > reshape wide Score rank , i(Application) j(Rator) > graph matrix Score? > > #4 really is oddball. > > Another interesting plot is > > parplot Score?, tr(raw) > > where -parplot- must be installed from SSC first. > > Nick > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Lenny Lesser <lenny3200@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Rebecca, >> Thank you for your help. As a clarification: >> We used scores originally, but Rater 4's scores were all very low. >> Thus, when we ranked them, there were a lot of ties. As seen below, 8 >> of the 11 apps got a rank of "2" by rater. >> Lenny >> >> Application Rator Score rank >> 5 1 2 1 >> 7 1 5 2 >> 2 1 6 3 >> 9 1 6 3 >> 11 1 7 4 >> 6 1 7 4 >> 8 1 11 5 >> 3 1 13 6 >> 4 1 16 7 >> 10 1 17 8 >> 1 1 18 9 >> 6 2 1 1 >> 5 2 2 2 >> 11 2 3 3 >> 7 2 3 3 >> 4 2 5 4 >> 1 2 7 5 >> 8 2 8 6 >> 2 2 9 7 >> 3 2 10 8 >> 10 2 12 9 >> 9 2 12 9 >> 5 3 2 1 >> 2 3 5 2 >> 7 3 6 3 >> 6 3 6 3 >> 9 3 6 3 >> 11 3 7 4 >> 8 3 11 5 >> 3 3 13 6 >> 4 3 15 7 >> 10 3 16 8 >> 1 3 17 9 >> 7 4 0 1 >> 1 4 1 2 >> 9 4 1 2 >> 6 4 1 2 >> 8 4 1 2 >> 4 4 1 2 >> 5 4 1 2 >> 3 4 1 2 >> 11 4 1 2 >> 2 4 2 3 >> 10 4 3 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-***From:*"JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <jvverkuilen@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-***From:*Lenny Lesser <lenny3200@gmail.com>

**Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-***From:*Rebecca Pope <rebecca.a.pope@gmail.com>

**Fwd: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-***From:*Lenny Lesser <lenny3200@gmail.com>

**Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-***From:*Rebecca Pope <rebecca.a.pope@gmail.com>

**Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-***From:*Lenny Lesser <lenny3200@gmail.com>

**Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: excluding single measurements in time** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: passing argument(s) to Mata constructors** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-** - Index(es):