Reliability of single and averaged measurements
Source: Simulated measurement study. This analysis uses 40 of 40 rows; Excluded rows: 0 (unselected groups or missing/invalid selected values).
Inspect input rows
First 12 rows (before exclusions)
| Device A | Device B | Device C |
|---|---|---|
| 45.341 | 48.014 | 48.163 |
| 51.472 | 60.135 | 49.594 |
| 50.825 | 52.129 | 46.970 |
| 40.593 | 45.248 | 40.315 |
| 40.593 | 46.733 | 42.334 |
| 32.551 | 40.046 | 32.841 |
| 51.272 | 58.044 | 55.503 |
| 47.761 | 50.703 | 44.175 |
| 50.062 | 58.432 | 54.250 |
| 40.247 | 48.773 | 45.605 |
| 52.316 | 54.852 | 52.048 |
| 44.730 | 44.726 | 43.352 |
ICC(2, 1) = .79, 95% participant-bootstrap CI [.69, .85]. The estimate uses 40 complete participants and 3 measurements. SEM = 3.24.
Variance components behind the selected ICC
| Between-person MS | Measurement MS | Residual MS | Within-person MS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 124.54 | 250.19 | 4.38 | 10.52 |
The ICC is not clipped to zero. A negative method-variance component is set to zero for the SEM calculation only; the original ANOVA ICC estimate is retained.
Try this: Increase between-person SD while holding measurement-error SD fixed. Then add a fixed bias to Device B.
Explain what happens
More participant heterogeneity can raise ICC without improving measurement precision. A fixed device offset lowers absolute agreement more than consistency. Correlation can remain high even when devices are not interchangeable.
Assumptions and method
Independent participants and complete crossed measurements for two-way ICC. Generalizing beyond sampled raters requires a random-rater design; consistency for these fixed raters has a different scope. Single and average units must match the intended use. Bootstrap intervals resample participants, not measurement cells.
Read the method reference