 |
 |
Dear Meryl, It appears the study is looking at the between observer reliability of the Barthel Index, asking if it systematically differs between observers. Such repeatability/reliability studies aren't really covered by any of the standard checklists (see http://www.cche.net/usersguides/main.asp for a full list). Though the diagnostic checklist does ask: 1. Will the reproducibility of the test result and its interpretation be satisfactory in my setting? However, using the diagnostic checklist but changing the words "reference standard" to "the other test" would give you a reasonable checklist. Regards, Paul Glasziou At 15/02/2005, Lovarini wrote: >Dear List >A colleague of mine would like to appraise a study that compares the >results of using the one test (the Modified Barthel Index) using two >different methods of administration (eg self administered vs nursing >administered) with the same group of study participants (ie they are >assessed twice using the two different methods). Should this type of study >be appraised as a diagnostic study (eg where one method is the gold >standard, results include sensitivity, specificity etc) or is there a >different/more appropriate study design/data analysis for this type of >study . If so...what should the study design be? >Thanks in anticipation >Meryl Lovarini >Occupational Therapist >Sydney, Australia ><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] Paul Glasziou Department of Primary Health Care & Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Oxford ph: 44-1865-227055 www.cebm.net