Vertaile menetelmiä

	Inter-Indexer Consistency	Indexing Consistency Analysis
Tieteenala	Library Information Science	Library Information Science
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	1969	1981
Kehittäjä	Pranas Zunde & Margaret Dexter; L. Rolling (Hooper coefficient tradition)	L. Rolling; Pranas Zunde & Margaret Dexter (indexing-evaluation tradition)
Tyyppi	Agreement measurement for index-term assignment	Diagnostic analysis of indexing variability and its retrieval consequences
Alkuperäislähde	Rolling, L. (1981). Indexing consistency, quality and efficiency. Information Processing & Management, 17(2), 69-76.	Rolling, L. (1981). Indexing consistency, quality and efficiency. Information Processing & Management, 17(2), 69-76.
Rinnakkaisnimet	Indexer Agreement, Inter-Indexer Agreement, Hooper Consistency, Indexing Reliability	Indexing Variability Analysis, Indexing Reliability Analysis, Indexing Consistency Study, Within- and Between-Indexer Consistency Analysis
Liittyvät	3	3
Tiivistelmä	Inter-indexer consistency measures how far two or more people agree when they independently assign subject terms to the same documents. Because subject indexing is a judgment task — choosing which descriptors best represent a document's content — different indexers routinely pick overlapping but not identical term sets, and the degree of that overlap is a fundamental indicator of the reliability of an indexing system. The standard quantity is the Hooper-style consistency coefficient, the size of the shared term set divided by the size of the combined term set, averaged across documents; Zunde and Dexter and later Rolling refined it and connected it to indexing quality. Low consistency signals that retrieval will be unpredictable, since whether a document is found can depend on which indexer happened to process it.	Indexing consistency analysis goes beyond reporting a single agreement number to diagnose why indexing varies and what that variability costs. It distinguishes between-indexer consistency (do different people agree?) from within-indexer consistency (does the same person agree with themselves on re-indexing?), models how factors such as indexing exhaustivity, vocabulary specificity, document subject, and indexer experience drive the variability, and — following Rolling's question of whether consistency stands in for quality — traces how inconsistency degrades retrieval. The aim is actionable: identify the terms, subjects, and conditions where indexers diverge most, and feed that back into guidelines, vocabulary design, and training.