top of page

Scoring Results.

Our Krippendorff's Alpha Coefficient turned out to be: 0.234

 

...which seems pretty low!  However, if we take a look at our actual scores for most of the responses we have are actually within 1 score-point of each other.

 

I decided to run the tests on specific portions of the data as well. What I found was rather surprising. For the first half of our data (Livable Built Environment, Harmony with Nature, Resilient Economy, and Interwoven Equity categories), our coefficient of agreeability was 0.124 while for the second half (Healthy Community, Responsible Regionalism, Authentic Participation, Accountable Implementation, Content, and Characteristics categories), our coefficient was 0.27

 

I also decided to keep track of where we had the greatest consistency and where we had the most disagreement.  Here were some of the questions that garnered near unanimous responses compared to some that generated the most conflict.

 

Conflict: Prompt 46

-Responsible Regionalism: Coordinate local and regional housing plan goals

Individual Scores: 1, 2, -1, 3, -1, 0

Group score: 2

 

-This discrepancy may be the result of not knowing the definition of the question and/or a lack of clarity about what the topic actually is, resulting in people’s inability to identify it in the plan.  Or, the plan may have not made this issue clear enough.  Some people saw this prevalently vs. some people not seeing it at all or in low amounts.

 

Consent: Prompt 5

-Livable Built Environment: Plan for mixed land-use patterns in walkable and bikeable configurations

Individual Scores: 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2

Group score: 2

 

-This definition is much clearer and easier to identify. The definition within the matrix is easy to understand.

bottom of page