Intraclass Correlation Calculator (ICC for Inter-Rater Reliability)
Which ICC should I use for inter-rater reliability?
If the same raters scored every subject and you want the result to hold for other raters, use the two-way random-effects, absolute-agreement ICC: ICC(2,1) for one rater's score, ICC(2,k) for the average of k raters. Report it with its 95% confidence interval. Koo and Li (2016) call values below .50 poor, .50 to .75 moderate, .75 to .90 good and above .90 excellent.
There are six ICCs and they can give very different answers from the same data: Shrout and Fleiss's own example runs from .17 to .91. Most mistakes in theses are picking the wrong one, or picking the highest.
Answer three plain questions about your design, paste the ratings, and the calculator gives the ICC you need with its confidence interval, all six for comparison, and a sentence you can put in your results.
Built by Muhammad Shahzeb Anwar, MSc Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Rater reliability is checked wherever people score people: interviews, assessment centres, performance ratings, clinical scales.
Your ratings
Runs in your browser. Nothing you type is stored or sent anywhere.
Choosing the ICC in three questions
1. Did the same raters rate every subject? If each subject had its own raters (different interviewers for different candidates), the model is one-way random, ICC(1). If the same raters rated everyone, it is two-way.
2. Are the raters a sample, or the only raters that matter? If you want the result to generalise to other trained raters, the raters are random (ICC(2)). If these particular raters are the only ones who will ever rate, they are fixed (mixed model, ICC(3)). The arithmetic of the point estimate is the same for random and mixed; the interpretation is not.
3. Must the scores match, or only the order? Absolute agreement counts a rater who scores everyone two points higher as disagreeing. Consistency does not. If a pass mark or cut-off is applied to the scores, use absolute agreement.
Finally, single or average: if in practice one rater will score each subject, report the single-measures ICC. If the final score will be the mean of k raters, report the average-measures ICC, which is always higher. Reporting the average when one rater will be used is the most common way an ICC is overstated.
Worked example: Shrout and Fleiss (1979)
Six targets were rated by four judges (the data filled in above). The six ICCs come out as .17, .29, .71, .44, .62 and .91. The gap between ICC(2,1) = .29 and ICC(3,1) = .71 is the judges' different average levels: judge 1 rated everyone high and judge 2 everyone low. They agree on the order of the targets (consistency) but not on the scores (absolute agreement). The calculator reproduces the published values to two decimals.
What a confidence interval adds
With six subjects the 95% interval for ICC(3,1) runs from about .34 to .95: the data are consistent with anything from poor to excellent. Koo and Li (2016) recommend judging reliability by the interval, and a common planning rule is at least 30 subjects and at least 3 raters. More subjects narrow the interval far more than more raters do.
What this will not tell you
This computes ICCs for complete data: every subject rated by every rater (or, for the one-way model, the same number of ratings per subject). It does not handle missing ratings, unbalanced designs, multi-level or generalisability-theory designs, or kappa-type agreement for categories (use Cohen's or Fleiss' kappa for those). Nothing you paste leaves your browser.
Questions people actually ask
What is a good ICC value?
Koo and Li (2016): below .50 poor, .50 to .75 moderate, .75 to .90 good, above .90 excellent. Judge by the 95% confidence interval, not only the point estimate.
What is the difference between ICC(2,1) and ICC(3,1)?
Both use a two-way design. ICC(2,1) measures absolute agreement and treats raters as random; ICC(3,1) measures consistency with raters fixed, so a rater who scores everyone higher does not lower it.
Should I report single or average measures?
Report single measures if one rater's score will be used in practice, and average measures only if the final score really is the mean of the k raters.
How many subjects do I need for an ICC?
Koo and Li suggest at least 30 heterogeneous subjects and at least 3 raters. With fewer subjects the confidence interval becomes too wide to say much.
Is ICC the same as Pearson correlation?
No. Pearson correlation ignores differences in level between raters and works for two raters only; the absolute-agreement ICC counts those differences and works for any number of raters.
Can an ICC be negative?
Yes, when the variation within subjects is larger than between them. Treat a negative ICC as zero reliability, and check the data for a reversed scale or data-entry error.
Sources
Formulas from Shrout and Fleiss (1979) and McGraw and Wong (1996); the worked example reproduces Shrout and Fleiss's Table 2 data and published values. References checked on 2 November 2026.
- Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420-428: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
- McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30-46: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
- Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Cite this tool
Free to use and free to quote. If a figure here is useful in something you are writing, a link back is all that is asked.
Muhammad Shahzeb Anwar, MSc Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Intraclass Correlation (ICC) Calculator. Shahzeb Speaks. https://www.shahzebspeaks.com/intraclass-correlation-calculator/
The other free tools
Each one answers a single question and refuses the ones it cannot. All free, none asks for an email address.
Pakistan employment law6 tools
India3 tools
UK employment law4 tools
United States5 tools
Canada4 tools
EU regulation and hiring law5 tools
I/O psychology and psychometrics13 tools
US money and tax (2026)5 tools
UK money and tax (2026-27)7 tools
Canada money and tax4 tools
Online sellers3 tools
Household planners4 tools
Hiring and selection4 tools
Absence, pay, turnover and engagement4 tools
Reading a number without being fooled by it4 tools
Studying I/O psychology methods?
I/O Psychology Prep is a free study app with flashcards on reliability, validity, selection and the rest of the I/O syllabus.