Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Respondent burden and patient-perceived validity of the PDQ-39.

Kim, M-Y ; Dahlberg, A and Hagell, Peter LU (2006) In Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 113(2). p.132-137
Abstract
Evaluation of various methods in clinical practice is often based on interpretations by two or more observers. Such data need to be analysed with correct statistics, or the results and conclusions may be misleading. In this study, the use of measures of agreement for ordinal data in five international nursing journals is reviewed and various methods for measuring agreement are presented and discussed. Analyses of agreement did not seem to be very common in nursing research, but a great variation was found regarding the choice of method for analysing agreement. Both acceptable and unacceptable methods were found in the articles reviewed. When choosing among various methods for agreement the weighted κ-coefficient is probably the most useful... (More)
Evaluation of various methods in clinical practice is often based on interpretations by two or more observers. Such data need to be analysed with correct statistics, or the results and conclusions may be misleading. In this study, the use of measures of agreement for ordinal data in five international nursing journals is reviewed and various methods for measuring agreement are presented and discussed. Analyses of agreement did not seem to be very common in nursing research, but a great variation was found regarding the choice of method for analysing agreement. Both acceptable and unacceptable methods were found in the articles reviewed. When choosing among various methods for agreement the weighted κ-coefficient is probably the most useful for ordinal data, but several issues of concern arise and need to be taken into consideration when using these types of analyses. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica
volume
113
issue
2
pages
132 - 137
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • pmid:16411975
  • wos:000234575200011
  • scopus:33645274906
ISSN
1600-0404
DOI
10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00549.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
additional info
The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Division of Gerontology and Caring Sciences (Closed 2012) (013220200), Caring Sciences (Closed 2012) (016514020)
id
af368f3a-9fef-4cc8-a5ee-ed5a4181ac41 (old id 150321)
date added to LUP
2016-04-01 16:28:50
date last changed
2021-10-06 04:14:52
@article{af368f3a-9fef-4cc8-a5ee-ed5a4181ac41,
  abstract     = {Evaluation of various methods in clinical practice is often based on interpretations by two or more observers. Such data need to be analysed with correct statistics, or the results and conclusions may be misleading. In this study, the use of measures of agreement for ordinal data in five international nursing journals is reviewed and various methods for measuring agreement are presented and discussed. Analyses of agreement did not seem to be very common in nursing research, but a great variation was found regarding the choice of method for analysing agreement. Both acceptable and unacceptable methods were found in the articles reviewed. When choosing among various methods for agreement the weighted κ-coefficient is probably the most useful for ordinal data, but several issues of concern arise and need to be taken into consideration when using these types of analyses.},
  author       = {Kim, M-Y and Dahlberg, A and Hagell, Peter},
  issn         = {1600-0404},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {132--137},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Acta Neurologica Scandinavica},
  title        = {Respondent burden and patient-perceived validity of the PDQ-39.},
  url          = {https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/4685507/625264.pdf},
  doi          = {10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00549.x},
  volume       = {113},
  year         = {2006},
}