{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021042084168336674, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.035211267605634, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Observer agreement, credibility, and judgment: some considerations in presenting observer agreement data.

Graphical and statistical indices employed to represent observer agreement in interval recording are described as "judgmental aids", stimuli to which the researcher and scientific community must respond when viewing observer agreement data. The advantages and limitations of plotting calibrating observer agreement data and reporting conventional statistical aids are discussed in the context of their utility for researchers and research consumers of applied behavior analysis. It is argued that plotting calibrating observer data is a useful supplement to statistical aids for researchers but is of only limited utility for research consumers. Alternatives to conventional per cent agreement statistics for research consumers include reporting special agreement estimates (e.g., per cent occurrence agreement and nonoccurrence agreement) and correlational statistics (e.g., Kappa and Phi).