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