We interpreted the intermediate values according to Landis and Koch (1977): values of less than 0.01 indicate poor reliability; 0.01 to 0.20, slight reliability; 0.21 to 0.40, fair reliability; 0.41 to 0.60, moderate reliability; 0.61 to 0.80, substantial reliability; and more than 0.80, excellent reliability.
By and large, ICC inter-rater reliability values showed only slight to fair reliability for the NET (Table 3).
Overall, ICC values indicated slight to moderate intra-rater reliability for the NET.
Reliability for the categorized total NOS score was slight (K = 0.14, 95% CI = −0.02, 0.29; Table 1).
The classification system proposed by Landis and Koch [ 34] was used to determine the level of reliability for Kappa and PABAK: <0: poor, 0.00-0.20: slight, 0.21-0.40: fair, 0.41-0.60: moderate, 0.61-0.80: substantial, 0.81-1.00: almost perfect.
Reliability for the Melancholia subset of SDS items was.703, and skewness was.482, reflecting a slight clustering of scores to the left of the 1 to 4 point distribution, and kurtosis was 0.027, almost normal.
Reliability for the Nonmelancholia subset of SDS items was.736, and skewness was.495, again indicating a slight clustering left of the mean, and kurtosis was -.335, reflecting a fairly flat distribution.
"Customers rated 3 UK highest on all topics relating to reliability, such as reliability for calls and texts, reliability during the day and reliability during the evening.
P doesn't measure reliability, for a start.
At this point we take both the reliability of the store and my trust in that reliability for granted.
