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

Table 4.

The effect of adjusting the instrument and a consensus meeting on validity for the three conditions

	Mean difference (CI)	S²_error (%)	S²_inspector (%)	S²_case (%); rho
	Cases on professionalism
Unadjusted	−0.26 (−0.59; 0.07)	0.49 (59)	0.07 (8)	0.28 (34); 0.34
Adjusted	0.77 (0.38; 1.16)	0.21 (30)	0.21 (30)	0.28 (40); 0.40
Consensus	0.85 (0.57; 1.12)	0.27 (47)	0.03 (5)	0.28 (48); 0.48
	Cases on pressure ulcers
Unadjusted	−0.06 (−0.22; 0.1)	0.38 (59)	0.04 (6)	0.23 (35); 0.35
Adjusted	0.43 (0.19; 0.67)	0.40 (53)	0.13 (17)	0.23 (30); 0.30
Consensus	0.37 (0.24; 0.5)	0.23 (46)	0.05 (9)	0.23 (45); 0.45

% 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.