↓ Skip to main content

Inter-rater reliability of the QuIS as an assessment of the quality of staff-inpatient interactions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inter-rater reliability of the QuIS as an assessment of the quality of staff-inpatient interactions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0266-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Dankmar Böhning, Chris McLean, Peter Griffiths, Jackie Bridges, Ruth M Pickering

Abstract

Recent studies of the quality of in-hospital care have used the Quality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) to rate interactions observed between staff and inpatients in a variety of ward conditions. The QuIS was developed and evaluated in nursing and residential care. We set out to develop methodology for summarising information from inter-rater reliability studies of the QuIS in the acute hospital setting. Staff-inpatient interactions were rated by trained staff observing care delivered during two-hour observation periods. Anticipating the possibility of the quality of care varying depending on ward conditions, we selected wards and times of day to reflect the variety of daytime care delivered to patients. We estimated inter-rater reliability using weighted kappa, κ w , combined over observation periods to produce an overall, summary estimate, [Formula: see text]. Weighting schemes putting different emphasis on the severity of misclassification between QuIS categories were compared, as were different methods of combining observation period specific estimates. Estimated [Formula: see text] did not vary greatly depending on the weighting scheme employed, but we found simple averaging of estimates across observation periods to produce a higher value of inter-rater reliability due to over-weighting observation periods with fewest interactions. We recommend that researchers evaluating the inter-rater reliability of the QuIS by observing staff-inpatient interactions during observation periods representing the variety of ward conditions in which care takes place, should summarise inter-rater reliability by κ w , weighted according to our scheme A4. Observation period specific estimates should be combined into an overall, single summary statistic [Formula: see text], using a random effects approach, with [Formula: see text], to be interpreted as the mean of the distribution of κ w across the variety of ward conditions. We draw attention to issues in the analysis and interpretation of inter-rater reliability studies incorporating distinct phases of data collection that may generalise more widely.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Mathematics 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,222,622
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,377
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,274
of 419,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 419,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.