• Page 36 (Last Paragraph)
  The last paragraph on this page should read as follows:
  

• Page 37 (Example 2.1) - Many thanks to D. Klein.
  The calculation of is wrong. The last paragraph of Example 2.1 should read as follows:

The last sentence of paragraph following example 2.1 is revised as follows:

• Page 44 (First paragraph of Example 2.2)
  The last sentence of the first paragraph of Example 2.2 (just before Table 2.8) should end as follows: " .... to facilitate the use of equations 2.3.1 through 2.3.5.
  
  In the last bullet point on that same page, "(equation 2.6)" should be replaced with "(equation 2.3.2)"

• Page 46 (First paragraph)
  The frist paragraph on page 46, including equation 2.3.7 but excluding Table 2.9 must be replaced with the following:
  
  

• Page 47 (First 3 bullet points)
  The first 3 bullet point on this page must be replaced with the following:
  
  
  

• Page 48 (Table 2.11)
  Table 2.11 of page 48 must be replaced with the following table:
  

• Page 54 (Equation 2.4.6) - Many thanks to Nilden Tutalar.
  Equation 2.4.6 is erroneous (the denominator in the expression of pe is (q-1), and not q*(q-1) as specified in the book). The correct equation is the following:
  

• Page 54 (Equations 2.4.8 and 2.4.9)
  Equation 2.4.8 is inaccurate. It must be replaced by the following equation:
  

and equation 2.4.9 would be replaced with the following:

• Page 55 (Equations 2.4.10)
  Equation 2.4.10 contains a typo, and must read as follows:
  
  

• Page 56 (Last bullet point)
  The last bullet point on page 56 must be replaced with the following paragraph:
  

• Page 64 (Tables 2.24 and 2.25) - Many thanks to Bruce Burkemper (South Carolina)
  Below are the corrected tables, where the revisions are circled in red.
  
  
  
  
  

  ---

• Page 81 (first paragraph)
  Replace "... these quadratic weights from equation 3.5 ..." with "... these quadratic weights from equation 3.2.5 ..."
  

• Page 84 (Example 3.2)
  
  The second bullet point of Example 3.2 should read: Gwet's $\mbox{AC}_2$ is, $\widehat{\kappa}_{_{G}}=(0.9375-0.6405)/(1-0.6405) = 0.8261.$
  
  The third bullet point of Example 3.2 should read: Scott's Pi is, $\widehat{\kappa}_{_{S}}=(0.9375-0.7314)/(1-0.7314) = 0.7673.$
  
  The second row of Table 3.8 should read: $\mbox{Gwet's } \mbox{AC}_1/\mbox{AC}_2$ | $0.6322$ | $0.8261$.
  
  The third row of Table 3.8 should read: $\mbox{Scott's Pi}$ | $0.6097$ | $0.7673$.
  

• Page 117 (Second paragraph)
  The first sentence of the second paragraph should read as follows:
  One way to verify how well equation (4.4.6) works is to simulate a population of subjects similar to what is described in Table 4.3, to define the "true" inter-rater reliability according to equation 4.4.1, and to study the statistical properties of the coefficient given by equation 4.2.1.
  

• Page 118 (Second paragraph)
  (the hat indicating that it is an approximation of the fixed and unknown abstract of equation 4.4.1). .....
  

• Page 118 (Second paragraph)
  . . . a good approximation of the population parameter of equation 4.4.1 as shown by Gwet (2008a).
  

• Page 124 (Table 4.8)
  Gwet's should be replaced by Gwet's

• Page 137(first paragraph)
  . . . the population-based coefficient takes (e.g. equation 5.2.3) ...
  

• Page 148 (last sentence of the first paragraph)
  "... is defined by equation 4.18 of chapter 4 ..." must be replaced by "... is defined by equation 4.6.1 of chapter 4 ..."
  

• Page 149 (first sentence associated with "Krippendorff's Alpha Coefficient" bullet point
  The reference in parenthese "(see section 3.5.2)" must be replaced by "(see section 3.4)"
  

• Page 149 (last two bullet points)
  The last two bullet points must be replaced by the following two:
  
  

• Page 173 (Second sentence)
  The sentence "However qualifying an agreement coefficient of 0.3 as fair would be a highly
  questionable characterization of the extent of agreement among 2 raters if the number
  of raters is limited to 5." should read:
  "However qualifying an agreement coefficient of 0.3 as fair would be a highly
  questionable characterization of the extent of agreement among 2 raters if the number
  of subjects is limited to 5."
  

• Page 253 (Figure 9.4.7)
  Figure 9.4.7 in the book is incorrect.. The correct figure is the following:

• Page 282 (last bullet point)
  "... the summation by M/n - r." must be replaced with "... the summation by M - rn."

• Pages 385-386 (Starting from "Examples" at the end of page 385)
  These examples contain a few errors.  The revised versions of these examples is the following: