# Agreement Between Two Datasets

Before applying the “individual agreement coefficient” method to COPD data, we test whether the residual variance is appropriate by calculating the Bland and Altman repeatability coefficient, which is 1.96 sqrt,2-sigma-_e-2-8.98. This tells us that there is about a 95% chance that repeated breathing frequencies are within 9 breaths per minute. In the context of the study, less than 5 is ideal, so the repeatability coefficient is unacceptable in this context. This means that we have to be careful in over-interpreting CIA results, as they are compared to a high benchmark. The CIA was calculated at 0.68 (IC 95% 0.56 to 0.70). It was proposed that an agreement be considered “acceptable” only if the CIA exceeded 0.8 [8, 27, 28]; in other words, if the disagreement between the devices lies within 25% of the level of disagreement of repeated measurements inside the devices and inside the patients. Therefore, the CIA results suggest a poor agreement between the devices, in accordance with the results of the other methods. Estimates of model variance components (2) allow us to identify the main sources of disagreement. There is significant variability due to subjects and activities (- – Sigma ” Alpha alpha-2-11.4, gamma-gamma”2-16.6) “Sigma”), which may be the reason we came to the conclusion at the CCC that the thoracic ligament apparatus is in low compliance with the gold standard apparatus. Wichtig ist jedoch, dass das Reste des Einzelnen hoch ist (-) (“ `sigma“`varepsilon`2=10.5`Big`) `) und die Interaktion zwischen Gerät-Aktivität ist moderat`( “left“sigma`_`_“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““ Die relativ große Variabilität von Tätigkeit und Thema spielt bei der Berechnung von CP, TDI und CIA keine Rolle, und dies könnte daher den Unterschied in der Schlussfolgerung im Vergleich zum CCC erklären. Bland JM, DG Altman. Agreement between measurement methods with multiple observations per person.

J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571-82. The index has the desirable additional property that if there is no additive or multiplier distortion, it takes the value of the correlation coefficient. In the event of distortion, the index takes a value of less than r according to a multiplication coefficient α which can only take a value between 0 and 1. The equation (10) provides an effective evidence (see Additional Information) that: p is the predetermined percentage of differences between devices, which we hope are included in the ±δ interval. Methods for assessing the agreement between observers based on the nature of the variables measured and the number of observers The five methods are based on parametric assumptions.