Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance

Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance

Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W), also known as Kendall's W, is a non-parametric statistical measure used to assess the agreement or concordance between multiple raters or judges when they rank a set of items. It is often used when you have ordinal data (ranks) and you want to see if there is consistency or consensus among the raters. It is widely applied in research areas such as psychology, medicine, and social sciences, where multiple judges are asked to rank or rate subjects...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

The Utility of Speech and Language Analytics for Screening Alzheimer's Disease.

Neuro-degenerative diseases·2026

Same author

A Single, Interpretable Vocal Biomarker for Enriching Antipsychotic Clinical Trials.

Biological psychiatry·2025

Same author

Assessing negative symptoms of schizophrenia in the context of remote independent ratings: a psychometric evaluation of BNSS and PANSS.

Schizophrenia research·2025

Same author

Replicating and extending the reliability, criterion validity, and treatment sensitivity of the shortened PANSS for pediatric trials.

European child & adolescent psychiatry·2025

Same author

Towards Enhancing Drug Development Methodology to Treat Cognitive Impairment Associated With Schizophrenia and Other Neuropsychiatric Conditions: Insights From 2 Decades of Clinical Trials.

Schizophrenia bulletin·2025

Same author

Response to Commentaries.

Schizophrenia bulletin·2025

Same journal

Response to "Burnout and Ethical Awareness in Mental Health Professionals: A Correlational Study".

Innovations in clinical neuroscience·2026

Same journal

Social Media Use and Technology Use in Patients with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Innovations in clinical neuroscience·2026

Same journal

Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction: Challenges and Treatment Approaches.

Innovations in clinical neuroscience·2026

Same journal

An Overview of Medical Errors in Psychiatry, Part 1: Introduction.

Innovations in clinical neuroscience·2026

Same journal

Responding to Correspondence on "Burnout and Ethical Awareness in Mental Health Professionals: A Correlational Study".

Innovations in clinical neuroscience·2026

Same journal

"AI Literacy" is a Deflection of Responsibility.

Innovations in clinical neuroscience·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 18, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Consensus recommendations on rater training and certification.

, Mark D West¹, David G Daniel¹

¹Mr. West is Principal Consultant with Innovum Research, Las Vegas, Nevada (was with ePharmaSolutions, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, at the writing of this article); Dr. Daniel is Senior Vice President, Chief Medical Director, Bracket Global LLC and is with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, George Washington University, McLean, Virginia; Dr. Opler is Chief Scientific Officer, Founder, ProPhase LLC, New York, New York; Dr. Wise-Rankovic is Vice President, CNS Clinical Development, INC Research, Raleigh, North Carolina; and Dr. Kalali is Professor of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, and Vice President, Global Head, Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Quintiles, San Diego, California.

Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience

|January 27, 2015

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Standardized guidelines are needed for selecting and training raters in clinical neuroscience trials. This article provides expert recommendations for rater selection, training, and evaluation to improve research consistency.

Keywords:

CNS certification clinical research guidelines rater rating scales recommendations training training methodology

More Related Videos

Use of a Video Scoring Anchor for Rapid Serial Assessment of Social Communication in Toddlers

Use of a Video Scoring Anchor for Rapid Serial Assessment of Social Communication in Toddlers

Published on: March 14, 2018

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 18, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Use of a Video Scoring Anchor for Rapid Serial Assessment of Social Communication in Toddlers

Use of a Video Scoring Anchor for Rapid Serial Assessment of Social Communication in Toddlers

Published on: March 14, 2018

Area of Science:

Neuroscience
Clinical Research
Psychometrics

Background:

Lack of standardized protocols for rater selection and training in clinical neuroscience trials.
Inconsistent rater performance can impact the validity and reliability of trial data.
Need for clear guidelines to ensure quality in administering rating scales.

Purpose of the Study:

To establish expert-based guidelines for selecting, training, and evaluating raters in clinical neuroscience research.
To define key terminology related to rater qualification and performance.
To provide recommendations for incorporating raters with existing training and certification.

Main Methods:

Development of guidelines based on recommendations from the CNS Summit Rater Training and Certification Committee.
Expert consensus on best practices for rater assessment and skill development.
Review and definition of relevant terminology for clinical neuroscience raters.

Main Results:

A comprehensive set of guidelines for rater selection, training, and evaluation.
Clear definitions for rater-related terminology.
Recommendations for leveraging prior rater experience and credentials.

Conclusions:

Implementation of these guidelines will enhance the standardization and quality of rater performance in neuroscience trials.
Standardized rater training is crucial for reliable and valid clinical outcome assessments.
These guidelines support investigators, pharmaceutical companies, and contract research organizations in conducting high-quality neuroscience research.