A Two-Stage Logistic Regression Model for Analyzing Inter-Rater Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of agreement commonly occur in psychiatric research. For example, researchers are often interested in the agreement among radiologists in their review of brain scans of elderly patients with dementia or in the agreement among multiple informant reports of psychopathology in children. In this paper, we consider the agreement between two raters when rating a dichotomous outcome (e.g., presence or absence of psychopathology). In particular, we consider logistic regression models that allow agreement to depend on both rater- and subject-level covariates. Logistic regression has been proposed as a simple method for identifying covariates that are predictive of agreement (Coughlin et al., 1992). However, this approach is problematic since it does not take account of agreement due to chance alone. As a result, a spurious association between the probability (or odds) of agreement and a covariate could arise due entirely to chance agreement. That is, if the prevalence of the dichotomous outcome varies among subgroups of the population, then covariates that identify the subgroups may appear to be predictive of agreement. In this paper we propose a modification to the standard logistic regression model in order to take proper account of chance agreement. An attractive feature of the proposed method is that it can be easily implemented using existing statistical software for logistic regression. The proposed method is motivated by data from the Connecticut Child Study (Zahner et al., 1992) on the agreement among parent and teacher reports of psychopathology in children. In this study, parents and teachers provide dichotomous assessments of a child's psychopathology and it is of interest to examine whether agreement among the parent and teacher reports is related to the age and gender of the child and to the time elapsed between parent and teacher assessments of the child.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.099 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".