Resumen
For the assessment of agreement using probability criteria, we obtain an exact test, and for sample sizes exceeding 30, we give a bootstrap-t test that is remarkably accurate. We show that for assessing agreement, the total deviation index approach of Lin [2000. Total deviation index for measuring individual agreement with applications in laboratory performance and bioequivalence. Statist. Med. 19, 255-270] is not consistent and may not preserve its asymptotic nominal level, and that the coverage probability approach of Lin et al. [2002. Statistical methods in assessing agreement: models, issues and tools. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 97, 257-270] is overly conservative for moderate sample sizes. We also show that the nearly unbiased test of Wang and Hwang [2001. A nearly unbiased test for individual bioequivalence problems using probability criteria. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 99, 41-58] may be liberal for large sample sizes, and suggest a minor modification that gives numerically equivalent approximation to the exact test for sample sizes 30 or less. We present a simple and accurate sample size formula for planning studies on assessing agreement, and illustrate our methodology with a real data set from the literature.