You should be able to do this in StatsDirect!
Weiya
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christian Lerch
Sent: 17 October 2011 20:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Calculating Multi Rater Kappa
I think the free version will do this:
http://agreestat.com/agreestat
Best regards,
Christian
Am 17.10.2011 21:17, schrieb Yaser Adi:
>
> I should be grateful to any list member who can direct me to any stats
> software that can calculate the:
> weighted multi-raters kappa. i.e for calculating the agreement between
> say 4 or 5 raters.
> I could not do this in StatsDirect or SPSS.
>
> Thank you in advance.
> Yaser
>
>
>
> /Dr Y. Adi
> Senior Researcher
> Shaikh Abdullah Bahamdan's Research Chair for Evidence-Based Health
> Care and Knowledge Translation College of Medicine, King Saud
> University P.O.Box 2925, Riyadh 11461 SAUDI ARABIA
> Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:47:06 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Systematic reviews of qualitative studies
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> That surprises me. Don't hierarchies distinguish between systematic
> reviews of RCTs, those of cohort studies, those of case control
> series....all of which are considered as operating as different levels
> of evidence?
>
> *From:*[log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Susan Fowler
> *Sent:* 17 October 2011 18:42
> *To:* Kathleen Irvine
> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Systematic reviews of qualitative studies
>
> Most hierarchies of evidence I see don't distinguish between a
> systematic review of quantitative vs qualitative studies. I would
> think if it is a systematic review of qualitative studies it is still
> a systematic review and thus still in the same place as other
> systematic reviews on the hierarchy of evidence.
>
> --
> Susan Fowler, MLIS
> Medical Librarian
>
> Evidence at Becker:
> http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm
>
> Mobile Resources Guide:
> http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/mobileresources
>
> Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis
> 314-362-8092
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Kathleen Irvine
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Can anyone advise how systematic reviews of qualitative studies should
> be regarded in terms of evidence-based practice? They don't have a
> place on the normal hierarchies of evidence but often seem to be of
> potential value to clinicians.
> Kathleen Irvine
> Subject Librarian
> Highland Health Sciences Library
> University of Stirling
> Highland Campus
> Centre for Health Science
> Inverness
> IV2 4AG
> (01463) 255608
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> The Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2009/2010
>
> The University of Stirling is a charity registered in Scotland, number
> SC 011159.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- The Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2009/2010 The
> University of Stirling is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC
> 011159.
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
|