The Experts below are selected from a list of 12676836 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
William H Harris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the harris hip score comparison of patient self report with surgeon assessment
Journal of Arthroplasty, 2001Co-Authors: Nizar N Mahomed, David C Arndt, Brian J Mcgrory, William H HarrisAbstract:Abstract Abstract: Outcome evaluations are of primary concern in contemporary medical practice. Questionnaires are being used increasingly to provide input data for such outcomes evaluation. This study comprised 50 primary total hip arthroplasties in 36 patients who had undergone the procedure at least 12 months before enrollment. Each patient completed a Self-Report Harris Hip Score (HHS) 30 days before a formal evaluation by an independent orthopaedic surgeon that included a HHS. Comparison was made between the completed responses to the individual items on the Self-Report HHS and surgeon-assessed HHS. Concordance of item response and κ statistic were calculated. Overall the Self-Report and surgeon-assessed HHS showed excellent concordance. The results of this study support the use of the HHS as a Self-Report instrument.
-
the harris hip score comparison of patient self report with surgeon assessment
Journal of Arthroplasty, 2001Co-Authors: Nizar N Mahomed, David C Arndt, Brian J Mcgrory, William H HarrisAbstract:Abstract Abstract: Outcome evaluations are of primary concern in contemporary medical practice. Questionnaires are being used increasingly to provide input data for such outcomes evaluation. This study comprised 50 primary total hip arthroplasties in 36 patients who had undergone the procedure at least 12 months before enrollment. Each patient completed a Self-Report Harris Hip Score (HHS) 30 days before a formal evaluation by an independent orthopaedic surgeon that included a HHS. Comparison was made between the completed responses to the individual items on the Self-Report HHS and surgeon-assessed HHS. Concordance of item response and κ statistic were calculated. Overall the Self-Report and surgeon-assessed HHS showed excellent concordance. The results of this study support the use of the HHS as a Self-Report instrument.
Gerhard Andersson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
self reported versus clinician rated symptoms of depression as outcome measures in psychotherapy research on depression a meta analysis
Clinical Psychology Review, 2010Co-Authors: Pim Cuijpers, Juan Li, Stefan G Hofmann, Gerhard AnderssonAbstract:It is not well-known whether Self-Report measures and clinician-rated instruments for depression result in comparable outcomes in research on psychotherapy. We conducted a meta-analysis in which randomized controlled trials were included examining the effects of psychotherapy for adult depression. Only studies were included in which both a Self-Report and a clinician-rated instrument were used. We calculated the effect size (Hedges g) based on the Self-Report measures, the effect size based on the clinician-rated instruments, and the difference between these two effect sizes (Delta g). A total of 48 studies including a total of 2462 participants was included in the meta-analysis. The differential effect size was Delta g=0.20 (95% CI: 0.10-0.30), indicating that clinician-rated instruments resulted in a significantly higher effect size than Self-Report instruments from the same studies. When we limited the effect size analysis to those studies comparing the HRSD with the BDI, the differential effect was somewhat smaller, but still statistically significant (Delta g=0.15; 95% CI: 0.03-0.27). This meta-analysis has made it clear that clinician-rated and Self-Report measures of improvement following psychotherapy for depression are not equivalent. Different symptoms may be more suitable for Self-Report or ratings by clinicians and in clinical trials it is probably best to include both.
Scott O Lilienfeld - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are self report cognitive empathy ratings valid proxies for cognitive empathy ability negligible meta analytic relations with behavioral task performance
Psychological Assessment, 2019Co-Authors: Brett A Murphy, Scott O LilienfeldAbstract:Empathy is widely regarded as relevant to a diverse range of psychopathological constructs, such as autism spectrum disorder, psychopathy, and borderline personality disorder. Cognitive empathy (CE) is the ability to accurately recognize or infer the thoughts and feelings of others. Although behavioral task paradigms are frequently used to assess such abilities, a large proportion of published studies reporting on CE use Self-Report questionnaires. For decades, however, a number of theorists have cautioned that individuals may not possess the metacognitive insight needed to validly gauge their own mindreading abilities. To investigate this possibility, we examined the aggregate relations between behavioral CE task performance and Self-Report CE scale scores, as well as with Self-Report affective empathy scale scores for comparison. Meta-analytic results, based on random effects models, from 85 studies (total N = 14,327) indicate that Self-Report CE scores account for only approximately 1% of the variance in behavioral cognitive empathy assessments and that, perhaps equally importantly, this relation is not significantly different from that demonstrated by affective empathy scores. Effect sizes were not moderated by Self-Report empathy domain, gender composition, unisensory versus multisensory behavioral stimuli presentation, child versus adult samples, or by normative versus clinical/forensic samples. Effect size estimates were not markedly affected by publication bias. These results raise serious concerns regarding the widespread use of Self-Report CE scores as proxies for CE ability, as well as the extensive theoretical conclusions that have been based on their use in past studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Rob Sansonfisher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the accuracy of self reported pap smear utilisation
Social Science & Medicine, 1997Co-Authors: Jennifer A Bowman, Rob Sansonfisher, Sally RedmanAbstract:This study assessed the accuracy of Self-Reported Pap smear utilisation over four different time frames, examining the magnitude of errors in Self-Report and sociodemographic predictors of accuracy. Self-Report data on women's cervical screening was collected by interview in a random household survey (Hunter Region, NSW, Australia), with pathology laboratory data collected by a search of records within laboratories. The magnitude of error in Self-Report was assessed by comparing it against longer intervals in pathology laboratory data. Sociodemographic predictors of accuracy were explored using chi square analyses. Low values for specificity and positive predictive value across all four time frames indicate a considerable degree of inaccuracy in women's reporting of those instances where, in truth, screening has not occurred. Of women reporting a smear within the last three years, only 61.2% were verified within pathology laboratory records. Allowing women some "leeway" in their reporting, comparing Self-Report to longer intervals of pathology laboratory data, did not greatly improve the accuracy of reporting, confirming that the magnitude of inaccuracy involved is of real clinical significance. Demographic variables were not related to the accuracy of Self-Report and, while a woman's certainty of her response was predictive, this had little impact on the measures of agreement. Self-Report of Pap smear histories consistently results in over-reporting of screening. Other means of assessing the prevalence of screening may be preferable to Self-Report. Where Self-Report data is collected, techniques to improve accuracy should be employed, and care should be taken in comparing screening rates obtained by different methods.
-
the accuracy of pap smear utilization self report a methodological consideration in cervical screening research
Health Services Research, 1991Co-Authors: Jenny Bowman, Selina Redman, James A Dickinson, R W Gibberd, Rob SansonfisherAbstract:Abstract One method used to determine utilization rates of cervical screening is women's Self-Report. Few studies have assessed the accuracy of this measure--none has been conducted in Australia--although there are a number of reasons for suspecting its validity. This study examined and quantified the accuracy of Self-Report of Pap smear use among a randomly selected sample of women from an Australian community. Accuracy of Pap smear utilization Self-Report within a three-year period was assessed by comparison with pathology records. Results indicated that almost half of the women who have not had Pap smears within three years will be missed by a Self-Report measure of utilization. Some implications for the measurement and use of Self-Report data are discussed.
Nizar N Mahomed - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the harris hip score comparison of patient self report with surgeon assessment
Journal of Arthroplasty, 2001Co-Authors: Nizar N Mahomed, David C Arndt, Brian J Mcgrory, William H HarrisAbstract:Abstract Abstract: Outcome evaluations are of primary concern in contemporary medical practice. Questionnaires are being used increasingly to provide input data for such outcomes evaluation. This study comprised 50 primary total hip arthroplasties in 36 patients who had undergone the procedure at least 12 months before enrollment. Each patient completed a Self-Report Harris Hip Score (HHS) 30 days before a formal evaluation by an independent orthopaedic surgeon that included a HHS. Comparison was made between the completed responses to the individual items on the Self-Report HHS and surgeon-assessed HHS. Concordance of item response and κ statistic were calculated. Overall the Self-Report and surgeon-assessed HHS showed excellent concordance. The results of this study support the use of the HHS as a Self-Report instrument.
-
the harris hip score comparison of patient self report with surgeon assessment
Journal of Arthroplasty, 2001Co-Authors: Nizar N Mahomed, David C Arndt, Brian J Mcgrory, William H HarrisAbstract:Abstract Abstract: Outcome evaluations are of primary concern in contemporary medical practice. Questionnaires are being used increasingly to provide input data for such outcomes evaluation. This study comprised 50 primary total hip arthroplasties in 36 patients who had undergone the procedure at least 12 months before enrollment. Each patient completed a Self-Report Harris Hip Score (HHS) 30 days before a formal evaluation by an independent orthopaedic surgeon that included a HHS. Comparison was made between the completed responses to the individual items on the Self-Report HHS and surgeon-assessed HHS. Concordance of item response and κ statistic were calculated. Overall the Self-Report and surgeon-assessed HHS showed excellent concordance. The results of this study support the use of the HHS as a Self-Report instrument.
