Benchmarking Kappa: Interrater Agreement in Software Process Assessments

Abstract

Software process assessments are by now a prevalent tool for process improvement and contract risk assessment in the software industry. Given that scores are assigned to processes during an assessment, a process assessment can be considered a subjective measurement procedure. As with any subjective measurement procedure, the reliability of process assessments has important implications on the utility of assessment scores, and therefore the reliability of assessments can be taken as a criterion for evaluating an assessment's quality. The particular type of reliability of interest in this paper is interrater agreement. Thus far, empirical evaluations of the interrater agreement of assessments have used Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Once a Kappa value has been derived, the next question is “how good is it?” Benchmarks for interpreting the obtained values of Kappa are available from the social sciences and medical literature. However, the applicability of these benchmarks to the software process assessment context is not obvious. In this paper we develop a benchmark for interpreting Kappa values using data from ratings of 70 process instances collected from assessments of 19 different projects in 7 different organizations in Europe during the SPICE Trials (this is an international effort to empirically evaluate the emerging ISO/IEC 15504 International Standard for Software Process Assessment). The benchmark indicates that Kappa values below 0.45 are poor, and values above 0.62 constitute substantial agreement and should be the minimum aimed for. This benchmark can be used to decide how good an assessment's reliability is.