Skip to main content

Table 4 Estimated agreement between LUCIE and KEDS or s-ED (at different LUCIE cutoff points and when making a sensitivity analysis by excluding identifications in the middle range of LUCIE)

From: The Lund University Checklist for Incipient Exhaustion–a cross–sectional comparison of a new instrument with similar contemporary tools

LUCIE1 KEDS s-ED s-ED
(2-levels) (3-levels) (2-levels)
Gliding cutoff point N Kappa [95 % CI] Kappa [95 % CI] Kappa [95 % CI]
1, 2, 3, 4 1339 0.21 0.17 − 0.25 0.13 0.10 − 0.16 0.12 0.09 − 0.16
1–(2, 3, 4) 1339 0.36 0.32 − 0.42 0.18 0.14 − 0.21 0.22 0.19 − 0.27
1, 2–(3, 4) 1339 0.48 0.41 − 0.55 0.28 0.21 − 0.35 0.36 0.28 − 0.44
1, 2, 3 − (4) 1339 0.28 0.20 − 0.36 0.17 0.10 − 0.24 0.26 0.17 − 0.34
Excluding steps (-)        
1, (2), 3, 4 1062 0.60 0.52 − 0.66 0.32 0.26 − 0.39 0.41 0.33 − 0.49
1, (2), (3), 4 945 0.60 0.49 − 0.70 0.32 0.21 − 0.41 0.46 0.32 − 0.58
  1. Note: Confidence intervals calculated with bootstrap estimation
  2. 1The rare combination of SWS yellow + UWS red (n = 4) was included in LUCIE category-4/RR