TY  - THES
A1  - Schübel, Niels
T1  - Evaluation von Beobachtungsskalen zur Beurteilung musiktherapeutischer Improvisationen
T1  - evaluation of scales to assess musictherapeutic improvisation
N2  - Die Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit der Beurteilung von Musiktherapie. Hierzu wurden Skalen entwickelt die musiktherapeutische Improvisation abbilden sollen. Zur Bewertung dieser Skalen wurde die Interraterreliabilität berechnet. Unterschiedliche Spielarten zeigten deutlich unterschiedlich gute Übereinstimmungen. Diese wurden herausgearbeitet und Vorschläge erarbeitet zur weiteren Optimierung dieser Skalen.
N2  - The thesis is about assessing musictherapy. We developed scales to assess musictherapeutic improvisation. To evaluate these scales the interraterreliability was calculated. Different kinds of improvisations showed distinct different amount of agreement. These differences are shown into detail und suggestions are made to further improve the scales.
KW  - Musiktherapie
KW  - Skalen
KW  - Reliabitität
KW  - Beobachtung
KW  - musictherapy
KW  - scales
KW  - reliability
KW  - observation
Y1  - 2003
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-12612
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Strahl, André
A1  - Gerlich, Christian
A1  - Alpers, Georg W.
A1  - Gehrke, Jörg
A1  - Müller-Garnn, Annette
A1  - Vogel, Heiner
T1  - An instrument for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation: development, evaluation, and inter-rater reliability
JF  - BMC Health Services Research
N2  - Background:
Employees insured in pension insurance, who are incapable of working due to ill health, are entitled to a disability pension. To assess whether an individual meets the medical requirements to be considered as disabled, a work capacity evaluation is conducted. However, there are no official guidelines on how to perform an external quality assurance for this evaluation process. Furthermore, the quality of medical reports in the field of insurance medicine can vary substantially, and systematic evaluations are scarce. Reliability studies using peer review have repeatedly shown insufficient ability to distinguish between high, moderate and low quality. Considering literature recommendations, we developed an instrument to examine the quality of medical experts’reports.

Methods:
The peer review manual developed contains six quality domains (formal structure, clarity, transparency, completeness, medical-scientific principles, and efficiency) comprising 22 items. In addition, a superordinate criterion (survey confirmability) rank the overall quality and usefulness of a report. This criterion evaluates problems of innerlogic and reasoning. Development of the manual was assisted by experienced physicians in a pre-test. We examined the observable variance in peer judgements and reliability as the most important outcome criteria. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, 20 anonymous experts’ reports detailing the work capacity evaluation were reviewed by 19 trained raters (peers). Percentage agreement and Kendall’s W, a reliability measure of concordance between two or more peers, were calculated. A total of 325 reviews were conducted.

Results:
Agreement of peer judgements with respect to the superordinate criterion ranged from 29.2 to 87.5%. Kendall’s W for the quality domain items varied greatly, ranging from 0.09 to 0.88. With respect to the superordinate criterion, Kendall’s W was 0.39, which indicates fair agreement. The results of the percentage agreement revealed systemic peer preferences for certain deficit scale categories.

Conclusion:
The superordinate criterion was not sufficiently reliable. However, in comparison to other reliability studies, this criterion showed an equivalent reliability value. This report aims to encourage further efforts to improve evaluation instruments. To reduce disagreement between peer judgments, we propose the revision of the peer review instrumentand the development and implementation of a standardized rater training to improve reliability.
KW  - work capacity evaluation
KW  - insurance medicine
KW  - quality assurance
KW  - peer review
KW  - reliability
Y1  - 2019
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200289
VL  - 19
ER  -