| Title |
Effect of Rater Training on Reliability and Accuracy of Mini-CEX Scores: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-008-0842-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David A. Cook, Denise M. Dupras, Thomas J. Beckman, Kris G. Thomas, V. Shane Pankratz |
| Abstract |
Mini-CEX scores assess resident competence. Rater training might improve mini-CEX score interrater reliability, but evidence is lacking. Evaluate a rater training workshop using interrater reliability and accuracy. Randomized trial (immediate versus delayed workshop) and single-group pre/post study (randomized groups combined). Academic medical center. Fifty-two internal medicine clinic preceptors (31 randomized and 21 additional workshop attendees). The workshop included rater error training, performance dimension training, behavioral observation training, and frame of reference training using lecture, video, and facilitated discussion. Delayed group received no intervention until after posttest. Mini-CEX ratings at baseline (just before workshop for workshop group), and four weeks later using videotaped resident-patient encounters; mini-CEX ratings of live resident-patient encounters one year preceding and one year following the workshop; rater confidence using mini-CEX. Among 31 randomized participants, interrater reliabilities in the delayed group (baseline intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.43, follow-up 0.53) and workshop group (baseline 0.40, follow-up 0.43) were not significantly different (p = 0.19). Mean ratings were similar at baseline (delayed 4.9 [95% confidence interval 4.6-5.2], workshop 4.8 [4.5-5.1]) and follow-up (delayed 5.4 [5.0-5.7], workshop 5.3 [5.0-5.6]; p = 0.88 for interaction). For the entire cohort, rater confidence (1 = not confident, 6 = very confident) improved from mean (SD) 3.8 (1.4) to 4.4 (1.0), p = 0.018. Interrater reliability for ratings of live encounters (entire cohort) was higher after the workshop (ICC 0.34) than before (ICC 0.18) but the standard error of measurement was similar for both periods. Rater training did not improve interrater reliability or accuracy of mini-CEX scores. clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00667940 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 207 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 12% |
| Researcher | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 11% |
| Other | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 62 | 29% |
| Unknown | 37 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 101 | 47% |
| Social Sciences | 30 | 14% |
| Psychology | 12 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 46 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2014.
All research outputs
#4,302,120
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,784
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,329
of 92,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#20
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 92,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.