This article assesses the predictive value of a new consensus between agents` expectations. This measure has several advantages over alternative methods of aggregating qualitative survey expectations. On the one hand, because it indicates the percentage of consent among respondents, it can be interpreted directly. On the other hand, it allows for the inclusion of information from respondents who do not expect a change in questions with three answer options. There are several operational definitions of “inter-rated reliability” that reflect different views on what a reliable agreement between advisors is.  There are three operational definitions of agreements: Goals: The Joanna Briggs Institute has implemented training programs on systematic verification methods, including verification of qualitative studies with software from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument in Great Britain, Spain, the United States, Canada, Thailand, Hong Kong, China and Australia. As part of the training, participants worked as a couple to carry out a blind critical assessment, followed by a process of transmission agreement; Obtaining qualitative knowledge and the completion of a metasynthesis process in two qualitative studies. These studies were verified by 18 pairs of experts from different cultures and contexts. The results of metasynthesis were analyzed to determine the extent to which an interreviewer was achieved between these 18 pairs. Kappa is similar to a correlation coefficient, as it can`t exceed 1.0 or -1.0. Because it is used as a measure of compliance, only positive values are expected in most situations; Negative values would indicate a systematic disagreement.
Kappa can only reach very high values if the two matches are good and the target condition rate is close to 50% (because it incorporates the base rate in the calculation of joint probabilities). Several authorities have proposed “thumb rules” to interpret the degree of the agreement, many of which coincide at the center, although the words are not identical.     Another approach to concordance (useful when there are only two advisors and the scale is continuous) is to calculate the differences between the observations of each pair of the two cleavages. The average of these differences is called Bias and the reference interval (average ± 1.96 × standard deviation) is called the compliance limit. The limitations of the agreement provide an overview of how random variations can influence evaluations. As you can see, we have an agreement between the two methods, 17 times out of 26, which corresponds to an approval rate of 65.4%. I suppose the higher the agreement here, the better, but we can discuss the objectives of this agreement if you have any other questions. The study analyses whether the integration of information from the degree of convergence between consumer expectations helps to refine the forecasts of the unemployment rate in eight European countries. First, we generate recursive forecasts with ARIMA models that are used as a repository.