In the article titled “Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Measures of agreement”, published on pages 187-191, Issue 4, Volume 8 of Perspectives in Clinical Research,[1] Table 1 has been incorrectly published. The table legend and table number are correct. The correct table is mentioned below:
Table 1.
Results of 20 students, each evaluated independently by two examiners
| Student ID | Situation 1 (desirable) | Situation 2 (both examiners mark randomly) | Situation 3 (very undesirable) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Examiner 1 | Examiner 2 | Examiner 1 | Examiner 2 | Examiner 1 | Examiner 2 | |
| #1 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail |
| #2 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail |
| #3 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail |
| #4 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail |
| #5 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail |
| #6 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail | Pass | Fail |
| #7 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail | Pass | Fail |
| #8 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Fail | Pass | Fail |
| #9 | Pass | Fail | Pass | Fail | Pass | Pass |
| #10 | Pass | Fail | Pass | Fail | Pass | Pass |
| #11 | Fail | Pass | Fail | Pass | Fail | Fail |
| #12 | Fail | Pass | Fail | Pass | Fail | Fail |
| #13 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass | Fail | Pass |
| #14 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass | Fail | Pass |
| #15 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass | Fail | Pass |
| #16 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass |
| #17 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass |
| #18 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass |
| #19 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass |
| #20 | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | Pass |
|
| ||||||
| Overall pass rate for each examiner | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% |
|
| ||||||
| Agreement, n (%) | 16 (80) | 10 (50) | 4 (20) | |||
| Disagreement, n (%) | 4 (20) | 10 (50) | 16 (80) | |||
| Expected agreement by chance, n (%) | 10 (50) | 10 (50) | 10 (50) | |||
| Kappa (κ) | 0.60 | 0 | −0.60 | |||
REFERENCE
- 1.Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8:187–91. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_123_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]