Abstract
This study illustrates the use of consensus theory to assess the diagnostic performances of raters and to estimate case diagnoses in the absence of a criterion or 'gold' standard. A description is provided of how consensus theory 'pools' information provided by raters, estimating rarer competencies and differentially weighting their responses. Although the model assumes that raters respond without bias (i.e., sensitivity = specificity), a Monte Carlo simulation with 1,200 data sets shows that model estimates appear to be robust even with bias. The model is illustrated on a set of elbow radiographs, and consensus-model estimates are compared with those obtained from follow-up data. Results indicate that with high rater competencies, the model retrieves accurate estimates of competency and case diagnoses even when raters' responses are biased.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 71-79 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Medical Decision Making |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1997 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- clinical competence
- consensus theory
- diagnostic evaluation
- interobserver variation
- models-mathematical
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
- Health Informatics
- Health Information Management
- Nursing(all)
Cite this
Assessing rater performance without a 'gold standard' using consensus theory. / Weller, Susan; Mann, N. Clay.
In: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 1, 01.1997, p. 71-79.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing rater performance without a 'gold standard' using consensus theory
AU - Weller, Susan
AU - Mann, N. Clay
PY - 1997/1
Y1 - 1997/1
N2 - This study illustrates the use of consensus theory to assess the diagnostic performances of raters and to estimate case diagnoses in the absence of a criterion or 'gold' standard. A description is provided of how consensus theory 'pools' information provided by raters, estimating rarer competencies and differentially weighting their responses. Although the model assumes that raters respond without bias (i.e., sensitivity = specificity), a Monte Carlo simulation with 1,200 data sets shows that model estimates appear to be robust even with bias. The model is illustrated on a set of elbow radiographs, and consensus-model estimates are compared with those obtained from follow-up data. Results indicate that with high rater competencies, the model retrieves accurate estimates of competency and case diagnoses even when raters' responses are biased.
AB - This study illustrates the use of consensus theory to assess the diagnostic performances of raters and to estimate case diagnoses in the absence of a criterion or 'gold' standard. A description is provided of how consensus theory 'pools' information provided by raters, estimating rarer competencies and differentially weighting their responses. Although the model assumes that raters respond without bias (i.e., sensitivity = specificity), a Monte Carlo simulation with 1,200 data sets shows that model estimates appear to be robust even with bias. The model is illustrated on a set of elbow radiographs, and consensus-model estimates are compared with those obtained from follow-up data. Results indicate that with high rater competencies, the model retrieves accurate estimates of competency and case diagnoses even when raters' responses are biased.
KW - clinical competence
KW - consensus theory
KW - diagnostic evaluation
KW - interobserver variation
KW - models-mathematical
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031013987&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031013987&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0272989X9701700108
DO - 10.1177/0272989X9701700108
M3 - Article
C2 - 8994153
AN - SCOPUS:0031013987
VL - 17
SP - 71
EP - 79
JO - Medical Decision Making
JF - Medical Decision Making
SN - 0272-989X
IS - 1
ER -