Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1998; 37(03): 309-310
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634540
Reply
Schattauer GmbH

Chance-Correction of Sensitivity and Specificity – Revisited

O. Gefeller
1   Department of Medical Statistics, University of Göttingen
,
H. Brenner
2   Department of Epidemiology, University of Ulm, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

 

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 37-46.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kraemer HC. The robustness of common measures of 2 X 2 association to bias due to misclassification. Amer Statist 1985; 39: 286-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Connel FA, Koepsell TD. Measures of gain in certainty from a diagnostic test. Amer J Epidemiol 1985; 121: 744-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kraemer HC. Assessment of 2 X 2 associations: generalization of signal-detection methodology. Amer Statist 1988; 42: 37-49.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kraemer HC, Bloch DA. Kappa coefficients in epidemiology: an appraisal of a reappraisal. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 959-68.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bloch DA, Kraemer HC. 2x2 Kappa coefficients: measures of agreement or association. Biometrics 1989; 45: 269-87.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Coughlin SS, Pickle LW. Sensitivity and specificity-like measures of the validity of a diagnostic test that are corrected for chance agreement. Epidemiology 1992; 3: 178-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jamart J. Chance-corrected sensitivity and specificity for three-zone diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1035-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jamart J. Rejoinder: chance-corrected sensitivity and specificity for three-zone diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 206.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gefeller O, Brenner H. How to correct for chance agreement in the estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests. Meth Inform Med 1994; 33: 180-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brenner H, Gefeller O. Chance-corrected measures of the validity of a binary diagnostic test. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 627-33.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gefeller O, Brenner H. A new méthodologie look at describing the performance of diagnostic classification procedures in medicine. In: Gaul W, Pfeifer D. eds. From Data to Knowledge – Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1996: 379-86.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Jamart J. A comment on Gefeller and Brenner's chance-corrected sensitivity and specificity. Meth Inform Med 1998; 37: 307-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar