Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Show us the evidence

Geoff Norman and John Cunnington
CMAJ February 22, 2000 162 (4) 489-489-a;
Geoff Norman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Cunnington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We read the study of physician performance in Alberta1 with a growing sense of concern. The study appears to provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the approach using self-assessments and assessments by peers and patients. Unfortunately, appearances are deceptive; while the survey contained information that could have been used to assess reliability and validity, none of the analyses reported in the paper were actually relevant to these concerns.

The study obtained ratings from patients and peers. These multiple raters per physician could have been used to assess inter-rater reliability. Regrettably this was not done; instead the authors computed the Cronbach α statistic, which is simply a measure of the extent to which a rater who rates 1 item high will rate other items high.

Secondly, since all subgroups were presumably assessing aspects of competence, one would expect some correlation between assessments by the physician himself or herself, patients, peers, consultants and co-workers. This is an issue of concurrent validity and could have been addressed by computing the mean score for each physician by each rater type and then correlating these scores. While the correlations may be less than 1, to the extent that there is such a thing as competence, the correlations should be positive and in the mid-range. Again, this informative analysis was not conducted.

It is frustrating to see that critical analyses that could have been done, were not. It is also worrisome that the study, which provides essentially no evidence to substantiate the reliability and validity of the peer assessment method, might be misinterpreted by the casual reader as strong support for the approach.

The peer assessment approach may well be a useful strategy. Certainly the results of other studies provide support for the strategy. Regrettably, the present study provides no evidence to assess the utility of the method.

Reference

  1. 1.↵
    Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer J, Fidler H, Toews J, et al. Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: the Physician Achievement Review. CMAJ 1999;161(1):52-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 162, Issue 4
22 Feb 2000
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Show us the evidence
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Show us the evidence
Geoff Norman, John Cunnington
CMAJ Feb 2000, 162 (4) 489-489-a;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Show us the evidence
Geoff Norman, John Cunnington
CMAJ Feb 2000, 162 (4) 489-489-a;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Reference
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Virtual care and emergency department use
  • The denial of racism is racism itself
  • An expanded role for blood donor emerging pathogens surveillance
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Patient safety & quality improvement
    • Research methods & statistics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire