Sloat, K.M.C. A comment on “Correction for distortion in a method of calculating the inter-observer agreement”, unpublished document. Kamehomeha Early Education Program, 1978. Repp, A.C., Deitz, D. E., Boles, S.M., Deitz, S.M., and Repp, C. F. Differences between common methods of calculating the Interobserver agreement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1976,9, 109-113 Scored-interval IOA. One approach to improving the accuracy of two observers` compliance with interval recording is simply to limit compliance testing to cases where at least one of the observers recorded a target response at an interval.

Intervals during which none of the observers reported a target response are excluded from the calculation in order to obtain stricter concordance statistics. Cooper et al. (2007) suggest that IOA with a point range (also referred to as “attendance agreement” in the research literature) is most advantageous for low-rate target reactions. In the data examples in Figure 2, the second, third and fourth intervals are ignored for calculation purposes because none of the controls responded at these intervals. Therefore, IOA statistics are calculated only from the first, fifth, sixth and seventh intervals. As there was only one agreement on half of the intervals (the fifth and sixth intervals), the concordance is 50% (2/4). This technical report provides detailed information about the reasons for using a common computer calculation program (Microsoft Excel®) to calculate different forms of interobserver agreement for continuous and discontinuous data series. We also offer a brief tutorial for using an Excel table to automatically calculate the traditional total number, partial match in intervals, exact match, sample for trial version, interval, point interval, non-disassembly interval, total duration and average duration per interval of Interobserver tuning algorithms. We conclude with a discussion on how practitioners can integrate this tool into their clinical work. Cohen, J.

Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for disagreements or partial credits. Psychological Bulletin 1968,70, 213-220. Maxwell, A. E., and Pilliner, A. E. G. Derived from assurance coefficients and compliance for assessments. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1968,21, 105-116. Fleiss, J.

L. Measurement of the overrealization of nominal scales among many evaluators. Psychological Bulletin 1971,76, 378-382. Mitchell, S. K. Interobserver concordance, reliability and generalization of data collected in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin 1979,86, 376-390. House, A.E., House, B.J. &Campbell, M.B. Measures of interobserver agreement: Calculation formulas and distribution effects. Journal of Behavioral Assessment 3, 37-57 (1981).

doi.org/10.1007/BF01321350 The idea that practicing behavioral analysts should collect and report reliability or interobserver compliance (IOA) in behavioral assessments is illustrated by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board`s (BACB) assertion that behavioral analysts are competent, “different methods of evaluating the results of measurement methods such as agreement, accuracy and reliability between observers” (BACB, 2005). In addition, Vollmer, Sloman and St. Peter Pipkin (2008) that the exclusion of these data significantly limits any interpretation of the effectiveness of a behaviour change procedure. . . .