In summary, CCI is a reliability index that reflects both the degree of correlation and the consistency between the measures. It has often been used in conservative care medicine to evaluate interrater, test-retest and intrarater reliability of numerical or continuous measurements. Given that there are 10 different forms of the ICC and that each form contains different hypotheses in their calculations and will give rise to different interpretations, it is important for researchers and readers to understand the principles of selecting an appropriate form of the ICC. Since the CCI estimate from a reliability study is only an expected value of the true CCI, it is preferable to assess the level of reliability based on the 95% confidence interval of the CCI estimate, not the ICC estimate itself. If you tested the same number of advisors (and the same themes) among the two models, you will see that the estimates are identical in the table under both models. However, as I have already said, the interpretation is distinguished by the fact that the conclusion of the agreement on the entire population of councillors can only be generalized with a random bipartisan model. You can also see a footnote indicating that the mixed model assumes that there is no missing-subject interaction; To be clear, this means that rats lack individual biases in relation to the characteristics of subjects that are not relevant to the task being evaluated (for example. B for an examiner`s hair color). (1) When the data sets are the same, all ICC estimates are equal to 1. (2) As a general rule, the « average K-Rater value » TYPE of CCI is larger than the corresponding type of « individual collector. » (3) The definition of « absolute agreement » generally gives a lower estimate of CCI than « coherence. » (4) Single-use random effects model generally gives a smaller CCI estimate than two-way models. (5) For the same definition of CCI (for example.

B absolute agreement), CCI estimates are identical between both two-way models and mixed effects, as they use the same formula for the calculation of CCI (Table 3). This has an important fact that the difference between random two-track models and mixed effect models lies not in the calculation, but in the experimental design of the reliability study and in the interpretation of the results. We need to understand that there are no defaults for acceptable reliability with ICC. A low CCI could not only reflect the low degree of tingling or measurement agreement, but also relate the lack of variability between the subjects studied, the small number of subjects and the small number of tyingers tested.2, 20 As a general rule, researchers should strive to obtain at least 30 heterogeneous samples and, if possible, to include at least 3 in a reliability study.