Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Contrasting groups' standard setting for consequences analysis in validity studies: reporting considerations

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. How to include medical students in your healthcare simulation centre workforce

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Variation and adaptation: learning from success in patient safety-oriented simulation training

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. "Hand-it-on”: an innovative simulation on the relation of non-technical skills to healthcare

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Non-Technical Skills Bingo: a game to facilitate the learning of complex concepts

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Point-of-care ultrasound for general practitioners: a systematic needs assessment

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Simulation-based training for flexible cystoscopy - A randomized trial comparing two approaches

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Background: The contrasting groups' standard setting method is commonly used for consequences analysis in validity studies for performance in medicine and surgery. The method identifies a pass/fail cut-off score, from which it is possible to determine false positives and false negatives based on observed numbers in each group. Since groups in validity studies are often small, e.g., due to a limited number of experts, these analyses are sensitive to outliers on the normal distribution curve.

Methods: We propose that these shortcomings can be addressed in a simple manner using the cumulative distribution function.

Results: We demonstrate considerable absolute differences between the observed false positives/negatives and the theoretical false positives/negatives. In addition, several important examples are given.

Conclusions: We propose that a better reporting strategy is to report theoretical false positives and false negatives together with the observed false positives and negatives, and we have developed an Excel sheet to facilitate such calculations.

Trial registration: Not relevant.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftAdvances in Simulation
Vol/bind3
Sider (fra-til)5
ISSN2059-0628
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2018

ID: 56243550