Abstract
This study examines reliability reporting in content analysis articles ( N = 672) in three flagship communication journals. Data from 1985 to 2014 suggest improvements in reporting across time and also identify areas for additional improvement. Data show increased reporting of chance-corrected reliability coefficients and reporting reliability for all study variables, although increases were inconsistent among journals and the most recent time period showed slight declines. In general, the most often used coefficient was Scott’s Pi; however, Krippendorff’s Alpha was most used in the latest study period. Reporting of low reliability coefficients increased but then decreased most recently. Implications and areas for improvement are discussed.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
