Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldman, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldman, R. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 17, No. 1, 3-21 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879401700101

The Reliability of Peer Assessments

A Meta-Analysis

Ronald L. Goldman

Veterans Adninistration

A meta-analysis of studies examining the interrater reliability of the standard practice of peer assessments of quality of care was conducted. Using the Medline, Health Planning and Administration, and SCISEARCH databases, the English-language literature from 1966 through 1991 was searchedfor studies of chance corrected agreement among peer reviewers. The weighted mean kappa of 21 independent findings from 13 studies was .31. Comparison of this result with widely used standards suggests that the interrater reliability of peer assessment is quite limited and needs improvement. Research needs to be directed at modifying the peer review process to improve its reliability or at identifying indexes of quality with sufficient validity and reliability that they can be employed without subsequent peer review.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Qual Health CareHome page
A. Charles, D. Ranson, M. Bohensky, and J. E. Ibrahim
Under-reporting of deaths to the coroner by doctors: a retrospective review of deaths in two hospitals in Melbourne, Australia
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, August 1, 2007; 19(4): 232 - 236.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
R. Evans, G. Elwyn, and A. Edwards
Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians
BMJ, May 22, 2004; 328(7450): 1240.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
B. J. Isetts, L. M. Brown, S. W. Schondelmeyer, and L. A. Lenarz
Quality Assessment of a Collaborative Approach for Decreasing Drug-Related Morbidity and Achieving Therapeutic Goals
Arch Intern Med, August 11, 2003; 163(15): 1813 - 1820.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
R. Bindels, A. Hasman, J. W. J. van Wersch, P. Pop, and R. A. G. Winkens
The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests
Med Decis Making, January 1, 2003; 23(1): 31 - 37.
[Abstract] [PDF]