Author:
Classen Sherrilene,Krasniuk Sarah,Knott Melissa,Alvarez Liliana,Monahan Miriam,Morrow Sarah,Danter Tim
Abstract
Background. Little empirical support exists for interrater reliability between evaluators from different backgrounds when assessing on-road outcomes of drivers. Purpose. We quantified interrater reliability of on-road outcomes between a certified driving school instructor (DI) and an occupational therapist and certified driver rehabilitation specialist (CDRS). Method. Both raters used the Global Rating Score (GRS) with two levels (pass, fail), the GRS with four levels (pass, pass with recommendations, fail remediable, fail), and the priority error rating score (PERS; most frequently occurring on-road errors in priority order) to assess 35 drivers (age, M = 48.31 years, SD = 9.76 years; 40% male; 86% with multiple sclerosis). Findings. The DI and occupational therapist CDRS had excellent agreement on the GRS with two levels (κ = .892, p < .0001), GRS with four levels (κ = .952, p < .0001), and the PERS (κ = .847–.902, p < .0001), indicating interrater reliability. Implications. This research contributes to empirical support for the on-road assessment.
Reference23 articles.
1. Reliability of a road test after stroke
2. On-road driving assessment and route design for drivers with dementia
3. Carmines E. G., Zeller R. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-017). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献