Cargando…

Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?

BACKGROUND: The reliability of clinical assessments is known to vary considerably with inter-rater reliability a key contributor. Many of the mechanisms that contribute to inter-rater reliability however remain largely unexplained and unclear. While research in other fields suggests personality of r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Faherty, Aileen, Counihan, Tim, Kropmans, Thomas, Finn, Yvonne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7212618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32393228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02009-4
_version_ 1783531653488967680
author Faherty, Aileen
Counihan, Tim
Kropmans, Thomas
Finn, Yvonne
author_facet Faherty, Aileen
Counihan, Tim
Kropmans, Thomas
Finn, Yvonne
author_sort Faherty, Aileen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The reliability of clinical assessments is known to vary considerably with inter-rater reliability a key contributor. Many of the mechanisms that contribute to inter-rater reliability however remain largely unexplained and unclear. While research in other fields suggests personality of raters can impact ratings, studies looking at personality factors in clinical assessments are few. Many schools use the approach of pairing examiners in clinical assessments and asking them to come to an agreed score. Little is known however, about what occurs when these paired examiners interact to generate a score. Could personality factors have an impact? METHODS: A fully-crossed design was employed with each participant examiner observing and scoring. A quasi-experimental research design used candidate’s observed scores in a mock clinical assessment as the dependent variable. The independent variables were examiner numbers, demographics and personality with data collected by questionnaire. A purposeful sample of doctors who examine in the Final Medical examination at our institution was recruited. RESULTS: Variability between scores given by examiner pairs (N = 6) was less than the variability with individual examiners (N = 12). 75% of examiners (N = 9) scored below average for neuroticism and 75% also scored high or very high for extroversion. Two-thirds scored high or very high for conscientiousness. The higher an examiner’s personality score for extroversion, the lower the amount of change in his/her score when paired up with a co-examiner; reflecting possibly a more dominant role in the process of reaching a consensus score. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of clinical assessments using paired examiners is comparable to assessments with single examiners. Personality factors, such as extroversion, may influence the magnitude of change in score an individual examiner agrees to when paired up with another examiner. Further studies on personality factors and examiner behaviour are needed to test associations and determine if personality testing has a role in reducing examiner variability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7212618
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72126182020-05-18 Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings? Faherty, Aileen Counihan, Tim Kropmans, Thomas Finn, Yvonne BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: The reliability of clinical assessments is known to vary considerably with inter-rater reliability a key contributor. Many of the mechanisms that contribute to inter-rater reliability however remain largely unexplained and unclear. While research in other fields suggests personality of raters can impact ratings, studies looking at personality factors in clinical assessments are few. Many schools use the approach of pairing examiners in clinical assessments and asking them to come to an agreed score. Little is known however, about what occurs when these paired examiners interact to generate a score. Could personality factors have an impact? METHODS: A fully-crossed design was employed with each participant examiner observing and scoring. A quasi-experimental research design used candidate’s observed scores in a mock clinical assessment as the dependent variable. The independent variables were examiner numbers, demographics and personality with data collected by questionnaire. A purposeful sample of doctors who examine in the Final Medical examination at our institution was recruited. RESULTS: Variability between scores given by examiner pairs (N = 6) was less than the variability with individual examiners (N = 12). 75% of examiners (N = 9) scored below average for neuroticism and 75% also scored high or very high for extroversion. Two-thirds scored high or very high for conscientiousness. The higher an examiner’s personality score for extroversion, the lower the amount of change in his/her score when paired up with a co-examiner; reflecting possibly a more dominant role in the process of reaching a consensus score. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of clinical assessments using paired examiners is comparable to assessments with single examiners. Personality factors, such as extroversion, may influence the magnitude of change in score an individual examiner agrees to when paired up with another examiner. Further studies on personality factors and examiner behaviour are needed to test associations and determine if personality testing has a role in reducing examiner variability. BioMed Central 2020-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7212618/ /pubmed/32393228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02009-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Faherty, Aileen
Counihan, Tim
Kropmans, Thomas
Finn, Yvonne
Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?
title Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?
title_full Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?
title_fullStr Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?
title_full_unstemmed Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?
title_short Inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?
title_sort inter-rater reliability in clinical assessments: do examiner pairings influence candidate ratings?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7212618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32393228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02009-4
work_keys_str_mv AT fahertyaileen interraterreliabilityinclinicalassessmentsdoexaminerpairingsinfluencecandidateratings
AT counihantim interraterreliabilityinclinicalassessmentsdoexaminerpairingsinfluencecandidateratings
AT kropmansthomas interraterreliabilityinclinicalassessmentsdoexaminerpairingsinfluencecandidateratings
AT finnyvonne interraterreliabilityinclinicalassessmentsdoexaminerpairingsinfluencecandidateratings