. 2014 May 12;20(4):352–361. doi: 10.1111/jep.12136

Table 3.

The effect of adjusting the instrument and a consensus meeting on inter-rater reliability for the three conditions

	Mean (CI)	S²_error (%)	S²_inspector (%)	S²_case (%); rho
	Cases on professionalism
Unadjusted	2.12 (1.75; 2.50)	0.39(44)	0.08 (9)	0.41 (47); 0.47
Adjusted	3.27 (2.82; 3.72)	0.22 (26)	0.22 (26)	0.41 (48); 0.48
Consensus	3.81 (3.48; 4.14)	0.26 (37)	0.03 (4)	0.41 (59); 0.59
	Cases on pressure ulcers
Unadjusted	2.51 (2.18; 2.84)	0.61 (62)	0.02 (2)	0.35 (35); 0.35
Adjusted	2.93 (2.53; 3.34)	0.39 (45)	0.14 (16)	0.35 (40); 0.40
Consensus	2.99 (2.63; 3.30)	0.24 (38)	0.05 (8)	0.35 (54); 0.54

% case, percentage of variance explained by cases; % error, percentage of variance explained by error; % inspector, percentage of variance explained by inspectors; CI, 80% confidence intervals; rho, mean reliability when one inspector examines a case; S²_case, variance of cases; S²_error, variance of inspectors and cases; S²_inspector, variance of inspectors.