ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2016
Validity, Reliability and Acceptability of the Team Standardized Assessment of Clinical Encounter Report.
Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Last Issue, 2016.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Team Standardized Assessment of a Clinical Encounter Report (StACER) was designed for use in Geriatric Medicine residency programs to evaluate Communicator and Collaborator competencies.
methodsThe Team StACER was completed by two geriatricians and interdisciplinary team members based on observations during a geriatric medicine team meeting. Postgraduate trainees were recruited from July 2010-November 2013. Inter-rater reliability between two geriatricians and between all team members was determined. Internal consistency of items for the constructs Communicator and Collaborator competencies was calculated. Raters completed a survey previously administered to Canadian geriatricians to assess face validity. Trainees completed a survey to determine the usefulness of this instrument as a feedback tool.
resultsThirty postgraduate trainees participated. The prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa range inter-rater reliability for Communicator and Collaborator items were 0.87-1.00 and 0.86-1.00, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for Communicator and Collaborator items was 0.997 (95% CI: 0.993-1.00) and 0.997 (95% CI: 0.997-1.00), respectively. The instrument lacked discriminatory power, as all trainees scored "meets requirements" in the overall assessment. Niney-three per cent and 86% of trainees found feedback useful for developing Communicator and Collaborator competencies, respectively.
conclusionsThe Team StACER has adequate inter-rater reliability and internal consistency. Poor discriminatory power and face validity challenge the merit of using this evaluation tool. Trainees felt the tool provided useful feedback on Collaborator and Communicator competencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.