Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 61, Issue 9 , Pages 866-874 , September 2008

The agreement chart as an alternative to the receiver-operating characteristic curve for diagnostic tests

  • Shrikant I. Bangdiwala

      Affiliations

    • University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, 137 E. Franklin Street, Suite 203, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA. Tel.: +1-919-962-3266; fax: +1-919-962-3265.
    • ,
  • Ana S. Haedo

      Affiliations

    • Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    • ,
  • Marcela L. Natal

      Affiliations

    • Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Mar del Plata, Argentina
    • ,
  • Andrés Villaveces

      Affiliations

    • University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    • CISALVA Institute, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

,Accepted 26 April 2008.

References 

  1. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3:32–35
  2. Bangdiwala S. A graphical test for observer agreement. In: Contributed papers of the 45th and centenary session of the International Statistical Institute, Book 1, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 1985. p. 307–8.
  3. Cohen J. A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46
  4. Guggenmoos-Holzmann I. How reliable are chance-corrected measures of agreement?. Stat Med. 1993;12:2191–2205
  5. Muñoz S, Bangdiwala S. Interpretation of kappa and B-statistics measures of agreement. J Appl Stat. 1997;24:105–111
  6. Biggerstaff BJ. Comparing diagnostic tests: a simple graphic using likelihood ratios. Stat Med. 2000 Mar 15;19:649–663
  7. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett. 2006;27:861–874
  8. Bangdiwala S. Using the agreement chart to examine observer bias. In: Contributed papers of the 46th session of the International Statistical Institute, Tokyo, Japan; 1987. p. 31–2.
  9. Quade D. The pair chart. Stat Neerl. 1973;27:29–45
  10. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165–175
  11. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995 Jan 11;273(2):149–154
  12. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2000;
  13. Porsa E, Cheng L, Seale MM, Delclos GL, Ma X, Reich R, et al. Comparison of a new ESAT-6/CFP-10 peptide-based gamma interferon assay and a tuberculin skin test for tuberculosis screening in a moderate-risk population. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2006 Jan;13(1):53–58
  14. Froehlich H, Ackerson LM, Morozumi PA. Targeted testing of children for tuberculosis: validation of a risk assessment questionnaire. Pediatrics. 2001 Apr;107(4):E54

PII: S0895-4356(08)00120-0

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.002

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 61, Issue 9 , Pages 866-874 , September 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution