Assessing the inter‐rater and intra‐rater reliability of the Physical Therapy Competence Assessment for Airway Suctioning (PT‐CAAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Physical Therapy Competence Assessment for Airway Suctioning (PT-CAAS) is a recently developed measure to assess the clinical competence of physiotherapists who perform airway suctioning with adults. The purpose of this study was to assess the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the PT-CAAS. METHODS: Scoring rules were developed through expert consultation. Reliability was then assessed using nine videos of suctioning performed in a simulated learning environment. A repeated measures design was used, with two replicate sets of measurements made by each participant for all videos. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures model for the concurrent assessment of inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Participants were physiotherapists with suctioning experience. RESULTS: Twenty physiotherapists completed initial scoring and re-scoring for all nine videos; their data were included in the analysis. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.569 [lower one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.395; standard error of measurement (SEM): 0.963] for infection control to 0.759 (lower one-sided 95% CI: 0.612; SEM: 0.722) for post-suctioning assessment and care. The inter-rater ICC for overall performance was 0.752 (lower one-sided 95% CI: 0.602; SEM: 0.660). ICCs for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.759 (lower one-sided 95% CI: 0.197; SEM 0.721) for infection control to 0.860 (lower one-sided 95% CI: 0.544; SEM: 0.550) for post-suctioning assessment and care. The intra-rater ICC for overall performance was 0.867 (lower one-sided 95% CI: 0.559; SEM: 0.483). DISCUSSION: Evidence of moderate to good inter-rater and good intra-rater reliability was found; however, the results should be interpreted with caution given the wide CIs and relatively large SEMs. Improved assessor training and assessments of reliability using a larger sample size are recommended.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".