Assessing the Reporting of Reliability in Published Content Analyses: 1985–2010

REFERENCES

• Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York, NY: Hafner.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch, D. A., & Kraemer, H. C. (1989). 2 x 2 Kappa coefficients: Measures for agreement or association. Biometrics, 45, 269–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gwet, K. L. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 29–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Kaid L. L., & Wadsworth, A. J. (1989). Content analysis. In P. E. Barker & L. L. Barker ( Eds.), Measurement of communication behavior. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2004a). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2004b). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2011). Agreement and information in the reliability of coding. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(2), 93–112.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2012). Commentary: A dissenting view on so-called paradoxes of reliability coefficients. In C. T. Salmon ( Ed.), Communication yearbook 36 ( pp. 481–499). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lacy, S., & Riffe, D. (1996). Sampling error and selecting intercoder reliability samples for nominal content categories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 963–973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2004). A call for standardization in content analysis reliability. Human Communication Research, 30, 434–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2010). Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. Retrieved from http:/matthewlombard.com/reliability/index_print.html
   Google Scholar
• Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pasadeos, Y., Huhman, B., Standley, T., & Wilson, G. (1995, August). Applications of content analysis in news research: A critical examination. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association or Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riffe, D., & Freitag, A. (1997). A content analysis of content analyses: 25 years of Journalism Quarterly. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 873– 882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schutz, W. C. (1952). Reliability, ambiguity and content analysis. Psychological Review, 59, 119–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C. C., & Lombard, M. (2001, May). Content analysis in communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Stempel, G. H., III. (1955). Increasing reliability in content analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 32, 449–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stempel, G. H., III. (2003). Content analysis. In G. H. Stempel, III, D. H. Weaver, & G. C. Wilhoit ( Eds.), Mass communication research and theory ( pp. 209–219). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, X. (2012. August). A reliability index (Ai) that assumes honest coders and variable randomness. Paper presented at the annual convention, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., Liu, J. S., & Deng, K. (2012). Assumptions behind intercoder reliability indices. In C. T. Salmon ( Ed.), Communication yearbook 36 ( pp. 419–480). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar