The term "agreement proportion" is correct and can be used in written English.
It refers to the balance or proportion of agreement among a group of people or entities. It is often used in discussions about decision-making or consensus-building. Example: In order to reach a successful agreement, the negotiation team must keep a close eye on the agreement proportion, ensuring that all parties are in general consensus on the terms and conditions of the deal.
Diagnostic performance, including 95% confidence intervals was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, agreement (proportion in whom both sample-specific results were concordant), predictive values and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve where the combined results of culture or PCR was used as the gold standard to classify patients as definite TBM or non TBM.
For a given agreement proportion, both kappa and CLQ will be dependent on the number of categories and marginal frequencies of the evaluated contingency table.
Dichotomous data will be displayed as a percentage of agreement proportion; comparisons between the service models will be examined and tested for significance using McNemar's test.
For the cranial index, the highest number was obtained with an expected agreement of 0.25 and a random agreement proportion of 0.546 (n = 74).
The raw agreement proportion for diagnosis was 88% and diagnostic inter-rater agreement was very high (κ=0.86; 95% CI: 0.80-0.93).
For the facial index, an agreement of 0.25 and a ratio of random agreement proportion of 0.488 (n = 59) was obtained.
‡ For knee disorders, raw agreement proportions for selected common knee pathologies are also presented.
A group-level index was then computed as the mean of the personal agreement proportions.
Since both observed agreement proportions and expected agreement proportions were equal to 1, the Kappa (agreement above that expected by chance) is either 0 or undefined; providing little information on the expected level of agreement.
While overall agreement proportions were generally high, 'false negatives' (clinician +/ CHW -) were more numerous than 'false positives' (clinician -/ CHW +).
This is not necessarily a weakness of the measures per se, since identical agreement proportions should be judged differently depending on the chance-expected agreement [ 29].
