Case K in the table below returns a calculated Kendall’s W = 1.1068, Kendall’s R = 1.124646, and p-value = 0.0000. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is agreement among the judges. For instance, we see that Issue 1 is critical for all judges, whereas Issues 3, 7, and 8 are rated lower. All ratings are consistent among all the judges.
In Case L, Kendall’s W = 0.2261, Kendall’s R = 0.0971, and p-value = 0.1352. This indicates that we cannot reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no statistical concordance among the different respondents answering the survey questions.
Finally, in Case M, Kendall’s W = 0.0028, Kendall’s R = -0.1633, and p-value = 0.9999. This certainly indicates extremely low consistency and reliability among the respondents.