Literature DB >> 23579475

Comparing audio and video data for rating communication.

Kristine Williams1, Ruth Herman, Daniel Bontempo.   

Abstract

Video recording has become increasingly popular in nursing research, adding rich nonverbal, contextual, and behavioral information. However, benefits of video over audio data have not been well established. We compared communication ratings of audio versus video data using the Emotional Tone Rating Scale. Twenty raters watched video clips of nursing care and rated staff communication on 12 descriptors that reflect dimensions of person-centered and controlling communication. Another group rated audio-only versions of the same clips. Interrater consistency was high within each group with Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) (2,1) for audio .91, and video = .94. Interrater consistency for both groups combined was also high with ICC (2,1) for audio and video = .95. Communication ratings using audio and video data were highly correlated. The value of video being superior to audio-recorded data should be evaluated in designing studies evaluating nursing care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  audio data; communication; gerontology; research methods; video data

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23579475      PMCID: PMC3729744          DOI: 10.1177/0193945913484813

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  West J Nurs Res        ISSN: 0193-9459            Impact factor:   1.967


  19 in total

1.  A comparison of videotape and audiotape assessment of patient-centredness in family physicians' consultations.

Authors:  M A Weingarten; J Yaphe; D Blumenthal; M Oren; A Margalit
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2001-11

2.  On the use of multilevel modeling as an alternative to items analysis in psycholinguistic research.

Authors:  Lawrence Locker; Lesa Hoffman; James A Bovaird
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-11

Review 3.  Therapeutic communication training in long-term care institutions: recommendations for future research.

Authors:  Lené Levy-Storms
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-07-24

Review 4.  Direct observation of behavior: a review of current measures for use with older adults with dementia.

Authors:  Kim J Curyto; Kimberly Van Haitsma; Deedre K Vriesman
Journal:  Res Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.571

5.  Elderspeak communication: impact on dementia care.

Authors:  Kristine N Williams; Ruth Herman; Byron Gajewski; Kristel Wilson
Journal:  Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 2.035

6.  Twice random, once mixed: applying mixed models to simultaneously analyze random effects of language and participants.

Authors:  Dirk P Janssen
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2012-03

Review 7.  Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem.

Authors:  Charles M Judd; Jacob Westfall; David A Kenny
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2012-05-21

8.  Linking resident behavior to dementia care communication: effects of emotional tone.

Authors:  Kristine N Williams; Ruth E Herman
Journal:  Behav Ther       Date:  2010-10-01

9.  Elderspeak's influence on resistiveness to care: focus on behavioral events.

Authors:  Ruth E Herman; Kristine N Williams
Journal:  Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen       Date:  2009-08-19       Impact factor: 2.035

Review 10.  Methods to improve reliability of video-recorded behavioral data.

Authors:  Kim Kopenhaver Haidet; Judith Tate; Dana Divirgilio-Thomas; Ann Kolanowski; Mary Beth Happ
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.228

View more
  7 in total

1.  Person-Centered Communication for Nursing Home Residents With Dementia: Four Communication Analysis Methods.

Authors:  Kristine N Williams; Yelena Perkhounkova; Ying-Ling Jao; Ann Bossen; Maria Hein; Sophia Chung; Anne Starykowicz; Margaret Turk
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 1.967

2.  Making the most of video recorded clinical encounters: Optimizing impact and productivity through interdisciplinary teamwork.

Authors:  Stephen G Henry; Anne Elizabeth Clark White; Elizabeth M Magnan; Eve Angeline Hood-Medland; Melissa Gosdin; Richard L Kravitz; Peter Joseph Torres; Jennifer Gerwing
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-06-03

3.  Parents' Interactive Problem-Solving Behavior and Emotion Studied With Audio Compared With Video Source.

Authors:  Karen Pridham; Janet Melby; Anthony Connor; Roger Brown; Yuliya Nemykina
Journal:  Res Theory Nurs Pract       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 0.745

4.  Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTION5 instrument: an exploratory analysis.

Authors:  Michael R Gionfriddo; Megan E Branda; Cara Fernandez; Aaron Leppin; Kathleen J Yost; Brittany Kimball; Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Laura Larrea; Katherine E Nowakowski; Victor M Montori; Jon Tilburt
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Oncologist-patient-caregiver decision-making discussions in the context of advanced cancer in an Asian setting.

Authors:  Chetna Malhotra; Ravindran Kanesvaran; Nesaretnam Barr Kumarakulasinghe; Sing-Huang Tan; Ling Xiang; James A Tulsky; Kathryn I Pollak
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Video-Enhanced Care Management for Medically Complex Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment.

Authors:  Susan N Hastings; Elizabeth P Mahanna; Theodore S Z Berkowitz; Valerie A Smith; Ashley L Choate; Jaime M Hughes; Juliessa Pavon; Katina Robinson; Cristina Hendrix; Courtney Van Houtven; Pamela Gentry; Cynthia Rose; Brenda L Plassman; Guy Potter; Eugene Oddone
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 7.538

7.  Nursing staff's responses to thematic content of patients' expressed worries: observing communication in home care visits.

Authors:  Linda Hafskjold; Vibeke Sundling; Hilde Eide
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 2.655

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.