Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
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
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mazzuca, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mazzuca, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, S. J.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Diabetes
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Scoring Patient Management Problems

External Validation of Expert Consensus

Steven A. Mazzuca

Stuart J. Cohen

Indiana University, School of Medicine

This study, determined the extent to which medicalf(culth agreed when rating options in two written patient management problems in diabetes mellitus. Another purpose vvas to determine whether option weights (used fir scoring) based on the consensus ratings offacult v actual/v predict the choices of well-qualified phy sicians. Experts showed better-than-chance agreement hut with considerable variation from one part of aproblem to another (3 /%C to 73%). Nevertheless, consensus ratings were very accurate predictors of the decisions of endocrinology fi/lows ('correlations from .60 to .97). When scoring weights are assigned to options in patient managetnent problems, consensus (average) ratings of ex'perts are like/v to demonstrate high concurrent validlitYv for vwell-qualified clinicians.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 5, No. 2, 210-217 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/016327878200500206
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
J. Norcini
Back to the Future: Clinical Vignettes and the Measurement of Physician Performance
Ann Intern Med, November 16, 2004; 141(10): 813 - 814.
[Full Text] [PDF]