Newman, D. A., and Sin, H.-P. (2009). How can missing data estimate compliance between groups? Sensitivity of SDwg, CVwg, rwg (j), rwg (j)* and ICC to no systematic response. From the organ. Methods 12, 113-147 doi: 10.1177/1094428106298969 Comparing two measurement methods, it is interesting not only to estimate both the distortion and the limits of concordance between the two methods (inter-advisor agreement), but also to evaluate these characteristics for each method itself. It could very well be that the agreement between two methods is bad simply because one of the methods has wide limits of convergence, while the other is narrow. In this case, the method of narrow match limits would be statistically superior, while practical or other considerations could alter this assessment. What constitutes narrow or broad boundaries of convergence or a small or large bias is a matter of practical evaluation. Klein, K.

J., Conn, A.B., Smith, D.B. and Sorra, J. S. (2001). Everyone agrees? A study of the coherence between groups in the perception of the work environment by staff. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 3-16 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.3 Lindell, M. K., and Brandt, C. J. (1999).

Evaluation of the interrater agreement on the professional importance of a test: comparison of the CVI, T, rwg (j) and rwg (j) indices*. J. Appl. Psychol. 84, 640-647 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010,84,4,640 0.85 – 1.96 x 0.037 to 0.85 + 1.96 x 0.037, which is calculated at an interval of 0.77748 to 0.92252, rounded to a confidence interval from 0.78 to 0.92. It should be noted that the SEÎș depends in part on the sample size. The higher the number of observations measured, the greater the expected standard error. .