scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Intra-rater reliability

About: Intra-rater reliability is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2073 publications have been published within this topic receiving 140968 citations.


Papers
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1976

1 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
09 Jul 2002

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The UM-OSCAARS (Universite de Montreal Objective and Structured Checklist for Assessment of Audiovisual Recordings of Surgeries/techniques) as discussed by the authors is a grid containing 10 criteria, each of which is graded on an ordinal Likert-type scale of 1 to 5 points.
Abstract: Background Use of videos of surgical and medical techniques for educational purposes has grown over the last years. To our knowledge, there is no validated tool to specifically assess the quality of these types of videos. Our goal was to create an evaluation tool and study its intrarater and interrater reliability and its acceptability. We named our tool UM-OSCAARS (Universite de Montreal Objective and Structured Checklist for Assessment of Audiovisual Recordings of Surgeries/techniques). Methods UM-OSCAARS is a grid containing 10 criteria, each of which is graded on an ordinal Likert-type scale of 1 to 5 points. We tested the grid with the help of 4 voluntary otolaryngology – head and neck surgery specialists who individually viewed 10 preselected videos. The evaluators graded each criterion for each video. To evaluate intrarater reliability, the evaluation took place in 2 different phases separated by 4 weeks. Interrater reliability was assessed by comparing the 4 top-ranked videos of each evaluator. Results There was almost-perfect agreement among the evaluators regarding the 4 videos that received the highest scores from the evaluators, demonstrating that the tool has excellent interrater reliability. There was excellent test–retest correlation, demonstrating the tool’s intrarater reliability. Conclusion The UM-OSCAARS has proven to be reliable and acceptable to use, but its validity needs to be more thoroughly assessed. We hope this tool will lead to an improvement in the quality of technical videos used for educational purposes.

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors developed the Objective Stretch Marks Assessment Scale (OSAS) to assess the severity of striae distensae, abdomen, breasts, hips, gluteal area, back area, thighs, calves, and upper limbs.
Abstract: Striae distensae evaluation criteria have been recently described, but none is focused on objective striae assessment. With the purpose of better and objectively estimating the severity of striae distensae, the Objective Stretch Marks Assessment Scale has been developed by the authors' team.Seven hundred White patients were included in the study and assessed. To assess the severity of striae distensae, abdomen, breasts, hips, gluteal area, back area, thighs, calves, and upper limbs photonumeric grading scales were developed. The Rasch model was used as part of the validation process. A score was attributed to each patient, based on the scales we developed. The interrater reliability and test-retest reliability were analyzed.Eight photonumeric scales for striae distensae treatment outcomes assessment were developed. All scales exceeded criteria for acceptability, reliability and validity. The interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good, with a substantial or virtually perfect interrater reliability for the total score (P = 0.16).The authors' results allowed them to validate the Objective Stretch Marks Assessment Scale as a reliable and reproducible tool to assess striae distensae treatment outcomes. This scale could be also considered as an important new metric that can be used in clinical research.

1 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Rehabilitation
46.2K papers, 776.3K citations
69% related
Ankle
30.4K papers, 687.4K citations
68% related
Systematic review
33.3K papers, 1.6M citations
68% related
Activities of daily living
18.2K papers, 592.8K citations
68% related
Validity
13.8K papers, 776K citations
67% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202342
202278
202186
202083
201986
201867