A Wallis1, A Edey, D Prothero, P McCoubrie. 1. Department of Radiology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK. Electronic address: aw7823@hotmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: To review the development of a workplace-based assessment tool to assess the quality of written radiology reports and assess its reliability, feasibility, and validity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review and rigorous Delphi study enabled the development of the Bristol Radiology Report Assessment Tool (BRRAT), which consists of 19 questions and a global assessment score. Three assessors applied the assessment tool to 240 radiology reports provided by 24 radiology trainees. RESULTS: The reliability coefficient for the 19 questions was 0.79 and the equivalent coefficient for the global assessment scores was 0.67. Generalizability coefficients demonstrate that higher numbers of assessors and assessments are needed to reach acceptable levels of reliability for summative assessments due to assessor subjectivity. CONCLUSION: The study methodology gives good validity and strong foundation in best-practice. The assessment tool developed for radiology reporting is reliable and most suited to formative assessments.
AIM: To review the development of a workplace-based assessment tool to assess the quality of written radiology reports and assess its reliability, feasibility, and validity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review and rigorous Delphi study enabled the development of the Bristol Radiology Report Assessment Tool (BRRAT), which consists of 19 questions and a global assessment score. Three assessors applied the assessment tool to 240 radiology reports provided by 24 radiology trainees. RESULTS: The reliability coefficient for the 19 questions was 0.79 and the equivalent coefficient for the global assessment scores was 0.67. Generalizability coefficients demonstrate that higher numbers of assessors and assessments are needed to reach acceptable levels of reliability for summative assessments due to assessor subjectivity. CONCLUSION: The study methodology gives good validity and strong foundation in best-practice. The assessment tool developed for radiology reporting is reliable and most suited to formative assessments.
Authors: Chengwu Yang; Claudia J Kasales; Tao Ouyang; Christine M Peterson; Nabeel I Sarwani; Rafel Tappouni; Michael Bruno Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2014-12-16
Authors: Su Hwan Kim; Lara M Sobez; Judith E Spiro; Adrian Curta; Felix Ceelen; Eric Kampmann; Martin Goepfert; Raphael Bodensohn; Felix G Meinel; Wieland H Sommer; Nora N Sommer; Franziska Galiè Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 2.362