Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meijman, F. J
Right arrow Articles by de Melker, R. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meijman, F. J
Right arrow Articles by de Melker, R. A
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 12, No. 1, 93-97
© Oxford University Press 1995

research-article

The extent of inter- and intrareviewer agreement on the classification and assessment of designs of single-practice research

Frans J Meijman and Ruut A de Melker*

Jan van Eijckstraat 19 hs, 1077 LG Amsterdam
* Department of General Practice, University of Utrecht Utrecht, The Netherlands

The aim of this study was to investigate how much inter- and intrareviewer agreement there was with regard to the classification of research designs and the assessment of the methodological quality of research reports. This was done by means of formal criteria and criteria relating to content. Three successive reliability tests were performed on two random samples of reports of single-practice research in general practice. Inter- and intrareviewer agreement on the classification tended to be satisfactory. The results of the tests to assess the methodological quality were, however, more deviant, the interreviewer agreement ranging from predominantly mediocre/poor to mostly good and intrareviewer agreement ranging from mediocre to good. These results emphasize the need for further discussion and follow-up research.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
I. Svab
Changing Research Culture
Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2004; 2(suppl_2): S30 - S34.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
M. C. A. van der Sanden and F. J. Meijman
Evidence-Based Science Communication: An Essay
Science Communication, March 1, 2004; 25(3): 272 - 287.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
D. T Wade
The review process
Clinical Rehabilitation, June 1, 1998; 12(6): 451 - 453.
[PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.