House, A.E., House, B.J. & Campbell, M.B. Mesures de l’accord interobserveur: formules de calcul et effets de distribution. Journal of Behavioral Assessment 3, 37-57 (1981). doi.org/10.1007/BF01321350 Hawkins, R. P., und Dotson, V. A. Reliability scores that täuschen: An Alice in Wonderland trip through the misleading characteristics of interobserver agreement scores in interval recording. Dans E. Ramp und G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior Analysis: Areas of Research and Application. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975, 539-376.

House, A. E., Farber, J., und Nier, L. L. Genauigkeits- und Geschwindigkeitsberechnung der Zuverlässigkeit unter Verwendung verschiedener Messgrößen der Interobserver-Übereinstimmung. Vortrag in Postersession, Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York, novembre 1980. Intervall für Intervall IOA. In short, the Interval by Interval method evaluates the proportion of intervals in which the two observers agreed to determine whether the targeted response occurred. Note that this includes agreement on the existence and absence of a target response. This is calculated by adding the total number of agreed intervals by the sum of the number of agreed and non-agreed intervals. As might be expected, this approach often leads to high convergence statistics. As Cooper et al.

(2007) report, this is particularly true when partial interval readings are used. In the data examples in Figure 2, observers disagree on the first and seventh intervals, resulting in an interval-by-interval compliance value of 71.4% (5/7). Hartmann, D. P. Reflections on the choice of Interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1977,10, 103-116. Fleiss, J. L.

Measurement of overvaluation of nominal scales among many evaluators. Psychological Bulletin 1971.76, 378-382. This technical report provides detailed information about the reasons for using a common computer calculation program (Microsoft Excel®) to calculate different forms of interobserver agreement for continuous and discontinuous data series. We also offer a brief tutorial for using an Excel table to automatically calculate the traditional total number, partial match in intervals, exact match, sample for trial version, interval, point interval, non-disassembly interval, total duration and average duration per interval of Interobserver tuning algorithms. We conclude with a discussion on how practitioners can integrate this tool into their clinical work. IOA at the point interval. One approach to improving the accuracy of two observers` compliance with interval recording is simply to limit compliance testing to cases where at least one of the observers recorded a target response at an interval. Intervals during which none of the observers reported a target response are excluded from the calculation in order to obtain stricter concordance statistics. Cooper et al. (2007) suggest that IOA, with a point range (also called “deposit agreement” in the research literature), is most advantageous in case of low-rate target reactions. . .

.