Content Disclaimer Copyright @2020. All Rights Reserved. 
Links : Home Index (Subjects) Contact StatsToDo 
Explanations
Javascript Program
R Codes
D
E
F
G
Kendall's coefficient of concordance for ranks (W) calculates agreements
between 3 or more rankers according to the ranking order each placed on the individuals being ranked.
The idea is that n subjects are ranked (0 to n1) by each of the rankers, and the statistics evaluates how much the rankers agree with each other. The program on this page is modified so that it can accept any ordinal scale, and the input data are ranked before calculation. This allows the program to be used for a wide range of evaluations and measurements, providing they are at least ordered. Nomenclature Ordinal data These are data sets where the numbers are in order, but the distances between numbers are unstated. In other words 3 is greater than 2 and 2 is greater than 1, but 32 is not necessarily the same as 21. A common ordinal data is the Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree. Although these numbers are in order, the difference between strongly agree and agree (54) is not necessarily the same as between disagree and strongly disagree (21). Instrument is any method of measurement. For example, a ruler, a Likert Scale (5 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree), or a machine (e.g. ultrasound measurement of bone length). In the example of this page, the instrument is the Likert Scale ExampleThe data in the example on this page was artificially generated to demonstrate the algorithm, and not related to any real data. It purports to be from a recruitment exercise, where the Curriculum vitae from 10 applicants (subjects) were reviewed by 3 senior selectors, to indicate which ones can be invited to a short list for interview. The measurement is a Likert Scale of 1=Strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree, in answer to the question of "this candidate should be short listed for interview".
Before the results are processed to produce a short list, some validation of the selectors opinion was thought to be important. This was evaluated in terms of the degree of consensus (concordance) between the answers from the 3 selectors. The table on the left contains the Likert scores from the 3 selectors on the 10 candidates, and the table on the right the scores converted to ranks, where the lost rank is 0 and the highest is 101=9. Tied ranks are averaged. The results are Kendall's W = 0.6781, df = 9, Chi Sq = 18.3090, p = 0.0318. indicate that there was statistically significant consensus between the selectors, at the p<0.05 level ReferencesSiegel S and Castellan Jr. N.J. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (1988) International Edition. McGrawHill Book Company New York. ISBN 0070573573 p. 262272 Siegel S and Castellan Jr. N.J. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (1988) International Edition. McGrawHill Book Company New York. ISBN 0070573573 Table T. Critical values for Kendall coefficient of concordance W p. 365 References for Table T: Copied from the book, but I have not read it
Maghoodloo A & Pallos L L (1981) Asymptotic behaviour of Kendall's partial rank correlation coefficient and additional Quantile estimates. Journal of Statistical Computing and Simulations 13: 4148
Input Data
Data Entry
Although Kendall's W is designed for ranks, this page can calculate using values, as the values are converted into ranks before calculation. A minimum of 3 columns should be used. Concordance for 2 raters should use Cohen's Kappa
R provides Kendall's W calculations in package irr
#Program 1: uses package irr from R dat = (" 3 2 4 5 2 5 1 1 3 4 3 5 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 4 3 3 5 5 4 5 ") mx = read.table(textConnection(dat),header=FALSE) #install.packages("irr") # if not already installed library(irr) kendall(mx, correct = TRUE)The results arre > kendall(mx, correct = TRUE) Kendall's coefficient of concordance Wt Subjects = 10 Raters = 3 Wt = 0.678 Chisq(9) = 18.3 pvalue = 0.0318The results are the same as that from the algorithm as described by Siegel and Castellan (SC) (see references in Explanation panel), except for small sample size. The irr package uses the Chi sq to determine statistical significance regardless of sample size. CS however argued that estimate Type I Error (p) so calculated is less reliable if the sample size is <=7, and produced a table (Table T) for small sample size The algorithm that follows is derived from that described by CS, and provides the table for testing statistical significance when sample size <=7 #Program 2: Uses algorithm desceibed by Siegel and Castellan # Subroutines for Type I Error when sample size <=7 TestSig < function(lo,hi,W) # short hand to produce the results in text { if(W<lo) return ("p>0.05 not significant") if(W>hi) return ("p<0.01") return ("0.05>p>0.01") } TableT < function(g,n,W) # Table T from Siegel and Castellan (see references in Explanation panel) { if(n<3  g>20) { return ("Insufficient data for significant testing") } if((n==3 & g<8)  (n==4 & g<4)  (n>4 && g<3) ) { return ("p>0.05 not significant") } if(n==3) { if(g==8) return (TestSig(0.376,0.522,W)) if(g==9) return (TestSig(0.333,0.469,W)) if(g==10) return (TestSig(0.300,0.425,W)) if(g<=12) return (TestSig(0.250,0.359,W)) if(g<=14) return (TestSig(0.214,0.311,W)) if(g==15) return (TestSig(0.200,0.291,W)) if(g==16) return (TestSig(0.187,0.274,W)) if(g<=18) return (TestSig(0.166,0.245,W)) if(g<=20) return (TestSig(0.150,0.221,W)) } if(n==4) { if(g==4) return (TestSig(0.619,0.768,W)) if(g==5) return (TestSig(0.501,0.644,W)) if(g==6) return (TestSig(0.421,0.553,W)) if(g<=8) return (TestSig(0.318,0.429,W)) if(g<=10) return (TestSig(0.256,0.351,W)) if(g<=15) return (TestSig(0.171,0.240,W)) if(g<=20) return (TestSig(0.129,0.182,W)) } if(n==5) { if(g==3) return (TestSig(0.716,0.840,W)) if(g==4) return (TestSig(0.552,0.683,W)) if(g==5) return (TestSig(0.449,0.571,W)) if(g==6) return (TestSig(0.378,0.489,W)) if(g<=8) return (TestSig(0.287,0.379,W)) if(g<=10) return (TestSig(0.155,0.211,W)) if(g<=15) return (TestSig(0.187,0.274,W)) if(g<=20) return (TestSig(0.117,0.160,W)) } if(n==6) { if(g==3) return (TestSig(0.660,0.780,W)) if(g==4) return (TestSig(0.512,0.629,W)) if(g==5) return (TestSig(0.417,0.524,W)) if(g==6) return (TestSig(0.351,0.448,W)) if(g<=8) return (TestSig(0.267,0.347,W)) if(g<=10) return (TestSig(0.215,0.282,W)) if(g<=15) return (TestSig(0.145,0.193,W)) if(g<=20) return (TestSig(0.109,0.146,W)) } if(n==7) { if(g==3) return (TestSig(0.624,0.737,W)) if(g==4) return (TestSig(0.484,0.592,W)) if(g==5) return (TestSig(0.395,0.491,W)) if(g==6) return (TestSig(0.333,0.419,W)) if(g<=8) return (TestSig(0.253,0.324,W)) if(g<=10) return (TestSig(0.204,0.263,W)) if(g<=15) return (TestSig(0.137,0.179,W)) if(g<=20) return (TestSig(0.103,0.136,W)) } } # Main algorithm for Kendall W by algorithm described in Siegel and Castellan dat = (" 3 2 4 5 2 5 1 1 3 4 3 5 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 4 3 3 5 5 4 5 ") mxDat = read.table(textConnection(dat),header=FALSE) n = nrow(mxDat) # sample size df = df = n  1 # degrees of freedom g = ncol(mxDat) # number of raters or instruments mxRank < mxDat # rank by R (minimum = 1) # changr to min rank = 0 for(j in 1:g) { mxRank[,j] < rank(mxDat[,j]) } mxRank < mxRank  1 # rank (minimum = 0) mxRank # display the ranks #Calculate W SR2 = 0 arDA1 = array(0,n) for(i in 1 : n) { arDA1[i] = 0; for(j in 1:g) { arDA1[i] = arDA1[i] + mxRank[i,j] } SR2 = SR2 + arDA1[i] * arDA1[i] } # Corrections for ties ETj = 0; arDA2 = array(0,g) for(j in 1 : g) { arDA2[j] = 0 for(i in 1 : (n1)) { if(mxRank[i,j]<9999) { t = 1 w = mxRank[i,j] for(kk in (i+1) : n) { if(mxRank[kk,j]==w)t = t + 1 } if(t>1) { arDA2[j] = arDA2[j] + t * t * t  t mxRank[i,j] = 9999 for(kk in (i+1) : n) { if(mxRank[kk,j]==w) mxRank[kk,j] = 9999 } } } } ETj = ETj + arDA2[j] } # Final calculations for W W = (12.0 * SR2  (3.0 * g * g * n * df * df)) / (1.0 * g * g * n * (n * n  1)  g * ETj); if(n>7) # adequate sample size >7 { chiSq = g * df * W p = 1  pchisq(chiSq, df=df) print(paste("Kendall's W = ", W," df=", df )) print(paste("Chi Sq = ", chiSq," p =", p )) } else # small sample size requires Table T from Segal & Castellan { print(paste("Kendall's W = ", W," df=", df )) print(TableT(g,n,W)) }The results are as follow. Please note W from both algorithms are the same. The difference is how statistical significance (p) is determined when the sample size id <=7 > mxRank # display the ranks V1 V2 V3 1 5.0 3.0 4.5 2 8.5 3.0 7.5 3 0.5 0.5 2.5 4 7.0 6.0 7.5 5 5.0 3.0 2.5 6 0.5 0.5 1.0 7 2.5 8.5 0.0 8 2.5 6.0 4.5 9 5.0 6.0 7.5 10 8.5 8.5 7.5 + print(paste("Kendall's W = ", W," df=", df )) + print(paste("Chi Sq = ", chiSq," p =", p )) [1] "Kendall's W = 0.678111587982833 df= 9" [1] "Chi Sq = 18.3090128755365 p = 0.0317530628234405"If the algorithms are used on the first 7 rows of data, the irr algorithm, using chi squares, found W to be statistically insignificant, but the Segal anf Castellan algorithm, using its table, found W to be significant at the p<0.05 level > mxRank # display the ranks V1 V2 V3 1 3.5 3.0 4.0 2 6.0 3.0 5.5 3 0.5 0.5 2.5 4 5.0 5.0 5.5 5 3.5 3.0 2.5 6 0.5 0.5 1.0 7 2.0 6.0 0.0 # results from irr algorithm > kendall(mx, correct = TRUE) Kendall's coefficient of concordance Wt Subjects = 7 Raters = 3 Wt = 0.65 Chisq(6) = 11.7 pvalue = 0.0691 # results from Segal and Castellan algorithm print(paste("Kendall's W = ", W," df=", df )) + print(TableT(g,n,W)) [1] "Kendall's W = 0.649895178197065 df= 6" [1] "0.05>p>0.01"
Contents of D:3
Contents of E:4
Contents of F:5
Contents of G:6
