MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consensus on interprofessional collaboration in hospitals: statistical agreement of ratings from ethnographic fieldwork and measurement scales

2010· article· en· W1935405148 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Kenaszchuk, Lesley Gotlib Conn, Katie N. Dainty, Colleen M. McCarthy, Scott Reeves, Merrick Zwarenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoThe Wilson CentreUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgreementEthnographyPsychologyMedicineFamily medicineMedical educationSociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Few methods are available for analysing psychometric properties of combined qualitative and quantitative data. While conventional reliability of measures - meaning reproducibility or consistency - may not be meaningful in small-N research, in some health services studies agreement on perceptions arising from data generated by fieldwork and quantitative measures can be examined to good effect. METHODS: We studied interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in seven hospitals. An ethnographer shadowed and conducted interviews with regulated health professionals in medicine wards. Concurrently, nurses completed the nurse-doctor relations subscale of the Nursing Work Index (NWI-NDRS) and a new measurement scale for IPC with doctors in the domains of communication, accommodation, and isolation. After fieldwork, the ethnographer rank-ordered hospital sites on IPC from 1 to 7 based on interpretation of the qualitative data. Mean-scale scores were calculated for hospital sites and converted to ranks similarly. The Tinsley-Weiss T-index (Tinsley & Weiss, 1975) for agreement among rank orderings was calculated for dyadic combinations of fieldwork and measurement ranks. RESULTS: Perfect agreement was obtained for the most liberal agreement definitions considered - differences of two rank positions - involving qualitative data agreement with IPC subscales for accommodation and isolation. Defining agreement as a difference of 1 rank at most, the T-index was 0.77 for agreement between fieldworker and IPC accommodation and the same for NWI-NDRS and IPC isolation. CONCLUSION: Qualitative data from fieldwork rankings were substantially in accord with the contemporary IPC scales, less so with the NWI-NDRS. Qualitative data appear to be useful as an additional approach to confirming the validity of quantitative scale data in measuring a complex interpersonal relational construct.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.248
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.464
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2480.464
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.469 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207