ArticleIndian journal of psychiatry2026
A primer on the intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability in medical research.
Article in Indian journal of psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Revised Version of the Social Cognitive Theory-Based Scale for Factors Influencing Eating Behavior in Adolescents.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Descriptive and Illustrative Capacity of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Aesthetic Surgery: A Study of Accelerated Facial Aging in Depressed Medical Residents.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a measure of reliability that is available in many forms, classified as one-way or two-way, random or mixed model, for single measures or as a mean of k measures, and as values for consistency or absolute agreement. Different forms of the ICC are appropriate in different clinical research contexts; each form has its own formula and interpretation. Literature on the ICC is sparse, and so concepts related to this statistic tend to be poorly understood, possibly resulting in a wrong form being used, and commonly resulting in poor reporting of the statistic in research papers. This article therefore explains the ICC and its forms in simple language, with examples where required. Practical guidance is provided for use and interpretation of the ICC. For most studies of test-retest reliability, or inter-rater reliability, the two-way mixed model ICC for single measures is appropriate, and the absolute agreement, along with its 95% confidence interval, should be reported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.