Literature DB >> 8634732

Improving participation and interrater agreement in scoring Ambulatory Pediatric Association abstracts. How well have we succeeded?

K J Kemper1, P L McCarthy, D V Cicchetti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether increasing the number and types of raters affected interrater agreement in scoring abstracts submitted to the Ambulatory Pediatric Association.
METHODS: In 1990, all abstracts were rated by each of the 11 members of the board of directors of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association. In 1995, abstracts were reviewed by four to five raters, including eight members of the board of directors, two chairpersons of special interest groups, and 10 regional chairpersons, for a total of 20 potential reviewers. Submissions were divided into the following three categories for review: emergency medicine, behavioral pediatrics, and general pediatrics. Weighted percentage agreement and weighted kappa scores were computed for 1990 and 1995 abstract scores.
RESULTS: Between 1990 and 1995, the number of abstracts submitted to the Ambulatory Pediatric Association increased from 246 to 407, the number of reviewers increased from 11 to 20, the weighted percentage agreement between raters remained approximately 79%, and weighted kappa scores remained less than 0.25. Agreement was not significantly better for the emergency medicine and behavioral pediatrics abstracts than for general pediatrics, nor was it better for the raters who reviewed fewer abstracts than those who reviewed many.
CONCLUSIONS: The number and expertise of those rating abstracts increased from 1990 to 1995. However, interrater agreement did not change and remained low. Further efforts are needed to improve the interrater agreement.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8634732     DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170290046007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med        ISSN: 1072-4710


  10 in total

1.  Poster exhibitions at national conferences: education or farce?

Authors:  Gabriele Salzl; Stefan Gölder; Antje Timmer; Jörg Marienhagen; Jürgen Schölmerich; Johannes Grossmann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Peer Review Interrater Reliability of Scientific Abstracts: A Study of an Anesthesia Subspecialty Society.

Authors:  Ira Todd Cohen; Kantilal Patel
Journal:  J Educ Perioper Med       Date:  2005-07-01

3.  Selecting the best clinical vignettes for academic meetings: should the scoring tool criteria be modified?

Authors:  Jeremiah Newsom; Carlos A Estrada; Danny Panisko; Lisa Willett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-09-17       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?

Authors:  Richard L Kravitz; Peter Franks; Mitchell D Feldman; Martha Gerrity; Cindy Byrne; William M Tierney
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.

Authors:  Hendy Abdoul; Christophe Perrey; Philippe Amiel; Florence Tubach; Serge Gottot; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Corinne Alberti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants.

Authors:  Lutz Bornmann; Rüdiger Mutz; Hans-Dieter Daniel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Reviewer agreement trends from four years of electronic submissions of conference abstract.

Authors:  Brian H Rowe; Trevor L Strome; Carol Spooner; Sandra Blitz; Eric Grafstein; Andrew Worster
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-03-19       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts.

Authors:  Antje Timmer; Lloyd R Sutherland; Robert J Hilsden
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-02-11       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 9.  More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Michael C Costanza; Bernhard Walder; Martin R Tramèr
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-07-10       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Analysis of full-text publication and publishing predictors of abstracts presented at an Italian public health meeting (2005-2007).

Authors:  S Castaldi; M Giacometti; W Toigo; F Bert; R Siliquini
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-29
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.