Reliability analysis for a proposed critical appraisal tool demonstrated value for diverse research designs
保存先:
| 出版年: | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology vol. 65, no. 4 (Apr 2012), p. 375 |
|---|---|
| 第一著者: | |
| その他の著者: | , |
| 出版事項: |
Elsevier Limited
|
| 主題: | |
| オンライン･アクセス: | Citation/Abstract Full Text Full Text - PDF |
| タグ: |
タグなし, このレコードへの初めてのタグを付けませんか!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1033248472 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 022 | |a 0895-4356 | ||
| 022 | |a 1878-5921 | ||
| 022 | |a 0021-9681 | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.006 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a 1033248472 | ||
| 045 | 2 | |b d20120401 |b d20120430 | |
| 084 | |a 22078576 | ||
| 084 | |a 109739 |2 nlm | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Crowe, Michael | |
| 245 | 1 | |a Reliability analysis for a proposed critical appraisal tool demonstrated value for diverse research designs | |
| 260 | |b Elsevier Limited |c Apr 2012 | ||
| 513 | |a EDB Journal Article | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a To examine the reliability of scores obtained from a proposed critical appraisal tool (CAT). Based on a random sample of 24 health-related research papers, the scores from the proposed CAT were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), generalizability theory, and participants' feedback. The ICC for all research papers was 0.83 (consistency) and 0.74 (absolute agreement) for four participants. For individual research designs, the highest ICC (consistency) was for qualitative research (0.91) and the lowest was for descriptive, exploratory and observational research (0.64). The G study showed a moderate research design effect (32%) for scores averaged across all papers. The research design effect was mainly in the Sampling , Results , and Discussion categories (44%, 36%, and 34%, respectively). The scores for research designs showed a majority paper effect for each (53-70%), with small to moderate rater or paper×rater interaction effects (0-27%). Possible reasons for the research design effect were that the participants were unfamiliar with some of the research designs and that papers were not matched to participants' expertise. Even so, the proposed CAT showed great promise as a tool that can be used across a wide range of research designs. To examine the reliability of scores obtained from a proposed critical appraisal tool (CAT). Based on a random sample of 24 health-related research papers, the scores from the proposed CAT were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), generalizability theory, and participants' feedback. The ICC for all research papers was 0.83 (consistency) and 0.74 (absolute agreement) for four participants. For individual research designs, the highest ICC (consistency) was for qualitative research (0.91) and the lowest was for descriptive, exploratory and observational research (0.64). The G study showed a moderate research design effect (32%) for scores averaged across all papers. The research design effect was mainly in the Sampling, Results, and Discussion categories (44%, 36%, and 34%, respectively). The scores for research designs showed a majority paper effect for each (53-70%), with small to moderate rater or paper×rater interaction effects (0-27%). Possible reasons for the research design effect were that the participants were unfamiliar with some of the research designs and that papers were not matched to participants' expertise. Even so, the proposed CAT showed great promise as a tool that can be used across a wide range of research designs. | |
| 650 | 2 | 2 | |a Australia |
| 650 | 1 | 2 | |a Epidemiologic Research Design |
| 650 | 1 | 2 | |a Evidence-Based Medicine |x standards |
| 650 | 1 | 2 | |a Feedback, Psychological |
| 650 | 2 | 2 | |a Humans |
| 650 | 2 | 2 | |a Reproducibility of Results |
| 650 | 2 | 2 | |a Sampling Studies |
| 650 | 2 | 2 | |a Statistics as Topic |
| 653 | |a Studies | ||
| 653 | |a Ethics | ||
| 653 | |a Design | ||
| 653 | |a Cats | ||
| 653 | |a Data collection | ||
| 653 | |a Validity | ||
| 653 | |a Epidemiology | ||
| 653 | |a Research design | ||
| 653 | |a Qualitative research | ||
| 653 | |a Correlation coefficient | ||
| 653 | |a Social | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Sheppard, Lorraine | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Campbell, Alistair | |
| 773 | 0 | |t Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |g vol. 65, no. 4 (Apr 2012), p. 375 | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t Healthcare Administration Database | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/1033248472/abstract/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/1033248472/fulltext/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text - PDF |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/1033248472/fulltextPDF/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch |