Test s.i.A. IOA. Savvy readers will find that IOA algorithms based on the above events are adapted to free-operator responses, responses that can occur at any time and are not anchored in events, but these measures do not explicitly take into account the experience-based reaction, which measures binary results (e.g. B presence/non-presence, yes/no, on-task/task). Thus, the experimental IOA measures the number of trials with consent divided by the total number of trials. This metric is as strict as the exact approach to the agreement. IoA with undotted interval. The IOA algorithm with a little interval (also called “non-deposit” agreement in the research literature) is also stricter than simple interval-by-interval approaches, taking into account only intervals in which at least one observer records the lack of response. The justification for pointless IOA is similar to that of the IOA with the scored interval, except that this metric responds best for high rates (Cooper et al., 2007).

In the figure 2 examples, the 5th and 6th intervals are ignored for calculation purposes, as both observers have received a response at these intervals. Thus, the IOA statistics are calculated from the remaining five intervals. Since agreement has only been reached on three of the five intervals (the second, third and fourth intervals), the approval rate is 60%. This is not a very strict agreement procedure, since a total of 100% could be determined if two observers recorded totally different cases of target responses within the same 15-metre observation. In the data flow example shown in Figure 1, Observer 1 records three target response instances during the 3 m (one per minute) of its observation, two instances per minute 4 and misses all other instances for the remaining 12 meters. During the same hypothetical observation, Observer 2 missed all three instances during 1-3 minutes, recorded a target response instance in minute 4, but recorded four instances in minute 15. Although these are totally different events, the total number of IAOs that would result would still be 100%. Rated interval: Add up intervals that are marked by “yes” or intervals filled.

Divide this number by the total number of intervals of the partial agreement at IOA intervals. To avoid the described disadvantage associated with the use of the IOA algorithm for the total number, the observation period is divided into small intervals, the partial approach of interval concordance (sometimes called “mean neck-per-interval” or “block-by-block”) dividing the observation time into small intervals, and then examining the intervals within each interval.