| Literature DB >> 26918644 |
Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba1, Liaquat Hossain1,2, Robert Heard3, Patrick Brennan4, Warwick Lee4, Sarah Lewis4.
Abstract
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this paper, we propose a theoretical model based upon previous studies about personal and social network dynamics of job performance. We provide empirical support for this model using real-world data within the context of the Australian radiology profession. An examination of radiologists' professional network topology through structural-positional and relational dimensions and radiologists' personal characteristics in terms of knowledge, experience and self-esteem is provided. Thirty one breast imaging radiologists completed a purpose designed questionnaire regarding their network characteristics and personal attributes. These radiologists also independently read a test set of 60 mammographic cases: 20 cases with cancer and 40 normal cases. A Jackknife free response operating characteristic (JAFROC) method was used to measure the performance of the radiologists' in detecting breast cancers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26918644 PMCID: PMC4769072 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Theoretical model for job performance constructs in knowledge intensive works.
Fig 2Schematic flow of three levels of questions in the social network survey.
Fig 3A screenshot of the BREAST tutorial evaluation for measuring the observer performance.
Detailed demographic information about alters in egocentric networks of breast radiologists.
| Gender | Male | 113 | 45.4% |
| Female | 136 | 54.6% | |
| Occupation | Radiologist | 142 | 57.0% |
| Surgeon | 23 | 9.2% | |
| Pathologist | 7 | 2.8% | |
| GP or Resident Doctor | 2 | 0.8% | |
| Clinician (Tertiary Specialist) | 12 | 4.8% | |
| Radiographer | 24 | 9.6% | |
| Nurse | 1 | 0.4% | |
| Health Administrator/Manager | 20 | 8.0% | |
| Other | 18 | 7.2% | |
| Workplace | Same place as ego's | 188 | 75.5% |
| Different place in ego's city/town | 48 | 19.3% | |
| Different city/town from ego's | 10 | 4.0% | |
| Different state from ego's | 2 | 0.8% | |
| Different country from ego's | 1 | 0.4% | |
| Medium of communication (ego- alter) | In-person | 145 | 58.2% |
| Telephone | 27 | 10.8% | |
| 14 | 5.6% | ||
| Video conference | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Others | 20 | 8.0% | |
| Combination of all | 43 | 17.3% | |
Point-biserial correlations of (dichotomous) personal characteristic parameters with JAFROC FOM.
| r | P | BCa 95% Confidence Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| High No. of mammograms read per year | .393 | .029 | .025 | .690 |
| High No. of years read mammograms | .250 | .175 | -.102 | .634 |
| Having fellowship in breast imaging | .103 | .582 | -.171 | .331 |
| High self-evaluation | .441 | .013 | .145 | .751 |
* P≤.05.
Bootstrap results are based on 1000 bootstrap samples.
Pearson correlations of social network parameters with JAFROC FOM.
| R | P | BCa 95% Confidence Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Degree centrality | .470 | .008 | .188 | .681 |
| Density | .025 | .892 | -.280 | .313 |
| Effective size | .360 | .046 | .098 | .564 |
| Efficiency | -.010 | .959 | -.421 | .395 |
| Constraint | -.410 | .022 | -.628 | -.259 |
| Hierarchy | -.442 | .013 | -.737 | -.074 |
| Mean Tie strength | .304 | .097 | -.087 | .583 |
| Occupational diversity | .155 | .406 | -.254 | .525 |
| Geographical diversity | -.071 | .704 | -.406 | .236 |
** P≤.001
* P≤.05.
Bootstrap results are based on 1000 bootstrap samples.
Fig 4Egocentric professional network of four different radiologists.
Upper Row: radiologists with high degree centrality, relatively high effective size, low constraint, low hierarchy and high performance (JAFROC FOM = .91 (upper left) and .91 (upper right)). Lower Row: radiologists with low degree centrality, low effective size, high constraint, high hierarchy and low performance (JAFROC FOM = .56 (lower left) and .59 (lower right)).
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis with JAFROC FOM as the dependant variable.
| Step 1 | .155 | |||||
| Constant | .740 | .020 | ≤.001 | |||
| High No. of mammograms read per year | .068 | .029 | .393 | .029 | ||
| Step 2 | .480 | |||||
| Constant | .579 | .061 | ≤.001 | |||
| High No. of mammograms read per year | .067 | .021 | .386 | .004 | ||
| Effective size | .025 | .006 | .521 | ≤.001 | ||
| Hierarchy | -1.440 | .348 | -.498 | ≤.001 | ||
| Mean Tie strength | .034 | .017 | .246 | .053 |
** P≤.001
* P≤.05
a marginally significant at the 0.05 level.
R2 = .634.