Literature DB >> 19295205

Is the NIHSS certification process too lenient?

Nancy K Hills1, S Andrew Josephson, Patrick D Lyden, S Claiborne Johnston.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a widely used measure of neurological function in clinical trials and patient assessment; inter-rater scoring variability could impact communications and trial power. The manner in which the rater certification test is scored yields multiple correct answers that have changed over time. We examined the range of possible total NIHSS scores from answers given in certification tests by over 7,000 individual raters who were certified.
METHODS: We analyzed the results of all raters who completed one of two standard multiple-patient videotaped certification examinations between 1998 and 2004. The range for the correct score, calculated using NIHSS 'correct answers', was determined for each patient. The distribution of scores derived from those who passed the certification test then was examined.
RESULTS: A total of 6,268 raters scored 5 patients on Test 1; 1,240 scored 6 patients on Test 2. Using a National Stroke Association (NSA) answer key, we found that correct total scores ranged from 2 correct scores to as many as 12 different correct total scores. Among raters who achieved a passing score and were therefore qualified to administer the NIHSS, score distributions were even wider, with 1 certification patient receiving 18 different correct total scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Allowing multiple acceptable answers for questions on the NIHSS certification test introduces scoring variability. It seems reasonable to assume that the wider the range of acceptable answers in the certification test, the greater the variability in the performance of the test in trials and clinical practice by certified examiners. Greater consistency may be achieved by deriving a set of 'best' answers through expert consensus on all questions where this is possible, then teaching raters how to derive these answers using a required interactive training module. Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19295205      PMCID: PMC2914355          DOI: 10.1159/000209237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cerebrovasc Dis        ISSN: 1015-9770            Impact factor:   2.762


  26 in total

1.  Feedback: a key feature of medical training.

Authors:  B P Wood
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Selfotel in acute ischemic stroke : possible neurotoxic effects of an NMDA antagonist.

Authors:  S M Davis; K R Lees; G W Albers; H C Diener; S Markabi; G Karlsson; J Norris
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 7.914

3.  A predictive risk model for outcomes of ischemic stroke.

Authors:  K C Johnston; A F Connors; D P Wagner; W A Knaus; X Wang; E C Haley
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 7.914

4.  Recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (Alteplase) for ischemic stroke 3 to 5 hours after symptom onset. The ATLANTIS Study: a randomized controlled trial. Alteplase Thrombolysis for Acute Noninterventional Therapy in Ischemic Stroke.

Authors:  W M Clark; S Wissman; G W Albers; J H Jhamandas; K P Madden; S Hamilton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Variability in modified Rankin scoring across a large cohort of international observers.

Authors:  Terence J Quinn; Jesse Dawson; Matthew R Walters; Kennedy R Lees
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2008-08-07       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  A randomized efficacy trial of citicoline in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Authors:  W M Clark; B J Williams; K A Selzer; R M Zweifler; L A Sabounjian; R E Gammans
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Feedback in clinical medical education.

Authors:  J Ende
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1983-08-12       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Prediction of hospital disposition after thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.

Authors:  Daniel J Schlegel; David Tanne; Andrew M Demchuk; Steven R Levine; Scott E Kasner
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  2004-07

9.  Utility of the NIH Stroke Scale as a predictor of hospital disposition.

Authors:  Daniel Schlegel; Stephen J Kolb; Jean M Luciano; Jennifer M Tovar; Brett L Cucchiara; David S Liebeskind; Scott E Kasner
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  A modified National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale for use in stroke clinical trials: preliminary reliability and validity.

Authors:  P D Lyden; M Lu; S R Levine; T G Brott; J Broderick
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 7.914

View more
  2 in total

1.  Validity and reliability of a korean version of the national institutes of health stroke scale.

Authors:  Mi Sun Oh; Kyung-Ho Yu; Ju-Hun Lee; San Jung; Im-Suck Ko; Joon-Hyun Shin; Soo-Jin Cho; Hui-Chul Choi; Hyang Hee Kim; Byung-Chul Lee
Journal:  J Clin Neurol       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 3.077

2.  The Effect of Naoxintong Capsule in the Treatment of Patients with Cerebral Infarction and Carotid Atherosclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Qiuer Liang; Yunfei Cai; Ruixue Chen; Weihao Chen; Liguo Chen; Ya Xiao
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 2.629

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.