物理治疗入学面试的纵向与横向评估方法

Jenna Smith-Turchyn, Luciana G. Macedo, S. Wojkowski, Gregory F. Spadoni, P. Stratford
{"title":"物理治疗入学面试的纵向与横向评估方法","authors":"Jenna Smith-Turchyn, Luciana G. Macedo, S. Wojkowski, Gregory F. Spadoni, P. Stratford","doi":"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction: The purpose of this study was to provide insight into carryover bias in the vertical and horizontal methods of assessing virtual admission interviews for physiotherapy candidates and to estimate interrater reliability of items within the 2 assessment methods and assessors’ satisfaction with the new horizontal method of assessment. Methods: This was a quality improvement study using retrospective data analysis of 2 datasets. The vertical scoring method (2020 dataset) consisted of 2 assessors scoring all items for a single candidate. The horizontal method (2021 dataset) had assessors evaluate selected candidates for a single group of items. Assessors completed a virtual survey asking about their satisfaction with the new horizontal scoring method. To investigate carryover bias, multiquestion, multirater correlation matrices were generated for the 2020 and 2021 datasets. Interrater reliability was examined by calculating Shrout and Fleiss class 1 and 2 intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize scaling questions on the satisfaction survey. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis to identify common themes. Results: Correlation matrices for the multiquestion, multirater correlation analysis supported carryover bias in the analysis of the 2020 dataset. In contrast for the 2021 data, higher correlations were obtained between raters within a question, demonstrating a reduced carryover effect. Interrater reliability based on the average of 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.70–0.77) for the 2020 cohort and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.02–0.22) for the 2021 cohort. The ICC difference between the datasets was statistically significant (Z = 2.40, P = .016). Most assessors agreed that they enjoyed reviewing applicants more horizontally than vertically. Discussion and Conclusions: Results of this study demonstrated reduced carryover bias and increased interrater reliability and assessor satisfaction with the horizontal method of scoring physiotherapy admissions interviews compared with the traditional vertical method. Continued exploration of admissions processes is vital to ensure the fairest method of conducting online physiotherapy admission interviews for a large pool of candidates.","PeriodicalId":91351,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":"36 1","pages":"316 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vertical Versus Horizontal Assessment Methods for Scoring Physiotherapy Entrance Interviews\",\"authors\":\"Jenna Smith-Turchyn, Luciana G. Macedo, S. Wojkowski, Gregory F. Spadoni, P. Stratford\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction: The purpose of this study was to provide insight into carryover bias in the vertical and horizontal methods of assessing virtual admission interviews for physiotherapy candidates and to estimate interrater reliability of items within the 2 assessment methods and assessors’ satisfaction with the new horizontal method of assessment. Methods: This was a quality improvement study using retrospective data analysis of 2 datasets. The vertical scoring method (2020 dataset) consisted of 2 assessors scoring all items for a single candidate. The horizontal method (2021 dataset) had assessors evaluate selected candidates for a single group of items. Assessors completed a virtual survey asking about their satisfaction with the new horizontal scoring method. To investigate carryover bias, multiquestion, multirater correlation matrices were generated for the 2020 and 2021 datasets. Interrater reliability was examined by calculating Shrout and Fleiss class 1 and 2 intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize scaling questions on the satisfaction survey. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis to identify common themes. Results: Correlation matrices for the multiquestion, multirater correlation analysis supported carryover bias in the analysis of the 2020 dataset. In contrast for the 2021 data, higher correlations were obtained between raters within a question, demonstrating a reduced carryover effect. Interrater reliability based on the average of 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.70–0.77) for the 2020 cohort and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.02–0.22) for the 2021 cohort. The ICC difference between the datasets was statistically significant (Z = 2.40, P = .016). Most assessors agreed that they enjoyed reviewing applicants more horizontally than vertically. Discussion and Conclusions: Results of this study demonstrated reduced carryover bias and increased interrater reliability and assessor satisfaction with the horizontal method of scoring physiotherapy admissions interviews compared with the traditional vertical method. Continued exploration of admissions processes is vital to ensure the fairest method of conducting online physiotherapy admission interviews for a large pool of candidates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal, physical therapy education\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"316 - 321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal, physical therapy education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000248\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

补充数字内容可在文本中获得。前言:本研究的目的是深入了解物理治疗候选人虚拟入院面试评估的纵向和横向方法中的遗留偏差,并估计两种评估方法中项目的相互信度以及评估者对新的横向评估方法的满意度。方法:这是一项质量改进研究,采用回顾性数据分析2个数据集。垂直评分法(2020年数据集)由2名评估员对单个候选人的所有项目进行评分。水平方法(2021年数据集)让评估者对一组项目的选定候选人进行评估。评估员完成了一项虚拟调查,询问他们对新的水平评分方法的满意度。为了研究结转偏差,我们为2020年和2021年的数据集生成了多问题、多因子相关矩阵。通过计算Shrout和Fleiss第1类和第2类内相关系数(ICCs)来检验组间信度。采用描述性统计对满意度调查的标度问题进行总结。使用内容分析来分析开放式问题,以确定共同主题。结果:在对2020年数据集的分析中,多问题、多评级相关分析的相关矩阵支持结转偏倚。与2021年的数据相比,同一个问题中的评分者之间获得了更高的相关性,表明结转效应减少。基于2个评分者平均值的评分者间信度在2020年队列为0.62 (95% CI: 0.70-0.77),在2021年队列为0.74 (95% CI: 0.02-0.22)。数据集之间的ICC差异具有统计学意义(Z = 2.40, P = 0.016)。大多数审核员都同意,他们更喜欢横向审查申请人,而不是纵向审查。讨论与结论:本研究的结果表明,与传统的垂直方法相比,对物理治疗入院面谈进行评分的水平方法减少了传递偏倚,提高了评估者的信度和评估者的满意度。继续探索招生过程是至关重要的,以确保公平的方法进行在线物理治疗录取面试的大量候选人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vertical Versus Horizontal Assessment Methods for Scoring Physiotherapy Entrance Interviews
Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction: The purpose of this study was to provide insight into carryover bias in the vertical and horizontal methods of assessing virtual admission interviews for physiotherapy candidates and to estimate interrater reliability of items within the 2 assessment methods and assessors’ satisfaction with the new horizontal method of assessment. Methods: This was a quality improvement study using retrospective data analysis of 2 datasets. The vertical scoring method (2020 dataset) consisted of 2 assessors scoring all items for a single candidate. The horizontal method (2021 dataset) had assessors evaluate selected candidates for a single group of items. Assessors completed a virtual survey asking about their satisfaction with the new horizontal scoring method. To investigate carryover bias, multiquestion, multirater correlation matrices were generated for the 2020 and 2021 datasets. Interrater reliability was examined by calculating Shrout and Fleiss class 1 and 2 intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize scaling questions on the satisfaction survey. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis to identify common themes. Results: Correlation matrices for the multiquestion, multirater correlation analysis supported carryover bias in the analysis of the 2020 dataset. In contrast for the 2021 data, higher correlations were obtained between raters within a question, demonstrating a reduced carryover effect. Interrater reliability based on the average of 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.70–0.77) for the 2020 cohort and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.02–0.22) for the 2021 cohort. The ICC difference between the datasets was statistically significant (Z = 2.40, P = .016). Most assessors agreed that they enjoyed reviewing applicants more horizontally than vertically. Discussion and Conclusions: Results of this study demonstrated reduced carryover bias and increased interrater reliability and assessor satisfaction with the horizontal method of scoring physiotherapy admissions interviews compared with the traditional vertical method. Continued exploration of admissions processes is vital to ensure the fairest method of conducting online physiotherapy admission interviews for a large pool of candidates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信