Table 3.
Interrater reliability analysis (Study 1).
| AC1 coefficients (95% CI) | Interpretation | Landis and Koch interpretation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range of values | Interpretation | |||
| Tooth marks on the edge of the tongue | 0.53 (0.36–0.70) | Moderate | (0.8 to 1) | Almost perfect |
| Tongue body color | 0.52 (0.30–0.74) | Moderate | (0.6 to 0.80) | Substantial |
| Tongue body size | 0.47 (0.30–0.64) | Moderate | (0.4 to 0.6) | Moderate |
| Cracks on the surface of the tongue | 0.46 (0.23–0.69) | Moderate | (0.2 to 0.4) | Fair |
| Thickness of tongue coating | 0.45 (0.28–0.62) | Moderate | (0 to 0.2) | Slight |
| Color of tongue coating | 0.40 (0.21–0.58) | Moderate | (−1 to 0) | Poor |
| Dryness and wetness of tongue body | 0.38 (0.14–0.63) | Fair | ||
| Dryness and wetness of tongue coating | 0.27 (0.08–0.45) | Fair | ||
| All images | 0.52 (0.38–0.65) | Moderate | ||
Interrater reliability was evaluated by Gwet's agreement coefficient. Gwet's AC1 was calculated using the online statistical software AgreeStat360. Using the Landis–Koch interpretation criteria, the interrater reliability of the dryness of the tongue and the dryness of the tongue coating were interpreted as fair, whereas those of the remaining items were interpreted as moderate.