Skip to main content

Table 3 Inter-rater concordance of all past applications of the four assessment tools

From: Development and analysis of quality assessment tools for different types of patient information – websites, decision aids, question prompt lists, and videos

Source material / concordancea

Overall

Physicians

Medical students

Lay people

Other

Oncology websites—total scores (n = 77; 2 raters)

.881

/

/

/

 

Oncology websites—content scores

.867

/

/

/

 

Oncology websites—formal scores

.794

/

/

/

 

Websites on cancer diets (n = 60; 2 raters)

.944

    

Thyroid cancer websites (n = 50; 4 raters)

.516

/

/

.739

.725 (patient—physician)

Oncologists’ and NMPs’ websites (n = 96; 2 raters)

.761

/

/

/

 

Oncologists’ websites (n = 49)

.811

/

/

/

 

NMPs’ websites (n = 47)

.691

/

/

/

 

Websites on diet and nutrition (n = 38; 4 raters)

.461

/

.673

.755

 

Websites on diet and nutrition—content scores

.622

/

.795

.781

 

Websites on diet and nutrition—formal scores

.525c

/

.703c

.620c

 

Websites on diet and nutrition – DGEb criteria

.578c

/

.653c

.659c

 

Oncological PDAs (n = 22; 4 raters)

.663

.607

.909

/

 

Oncological QPLs (n = 46; 4 raters)

.710

.640 (p = .097)

.910

/

 

Videos on complementary and alternative medicine (n = 24; 4 raters)

.851

.939

.910

/

 

Videos on complementary medicine (n = 13)

.752

.928

.877

/

 

Videos on alternative medicine (n = 11)

.899

.961

.930

/

 

Videos on diet and nutrition (n = 29; 4 raters)

.842

.868

.899

/

 
  1. aKendall’s coefficient of concordance (Kendall’s W): 0 = no concordance, 1 = perfect concordance; all tests significant at p < 0.05 with two exceptions given in brackets (p < 0.1)
  2. bGerman Nutrition Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung)
  3. cVery little variance in scores resulted in many identical/shared ranks, making the interpretation of Kendall’s W difficult