HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2473071431v1 247/3/771    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lockyer, J. M. Articles by Fidler, H. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lockyer, J. M. Articles by Fidler, H. M.

Assessment of Radiology Physicians by a Regulatory Authority¹

¹ From the Office of Continuing Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada. Received August 10, 2007; revision requested October 15; revision received December 12; accepted January 10, 2008; final version accepted January 12. Supported in part by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Address correspondence to J.M.L. (e-mail: lockyer{at}ucalgary.ca).

Purpose: To determine whether it is possible to develop a feasible, valid, and reliable multisource feedback program for radiologists.

Materials and Methods: Surveys with 38, 29, and 20 items were developed to assess individual radiologists by eight radiologic colleagues (peers), eight referring physicians, and eight co-workers (eg, technicians), respectively, by using five-point scales along with an "unable to assess" category. Radiologists completed a self-assessment on the basis of the peer questionnaire. Items addressed key competencies related to clinical competence, collegiality, professionalism, workplace behavior, and self-management. The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Ethics Research Board.

Results: Data from 190 radiologists were available. The mean numbers of respondents per physician were 7.5 of eight (1259 of 1520, 83%), 7.15 of eight (1337 of 1520, 88%), and 7.5 of eight (1420 of 1520, 93%) for peers, referring physicians, and co-workers, respectively. The internal consistency reliability indicated all instruments had a Cronbach of more than 0.95. The generalizability coefficient analysis indicated that the peer, referring physicians, and co-worker instruments achieved a generalizability coefficient of 0.88, 0.79, and 0.87, respectively. The factor analysis indicated that four factors on the colleague questionnaire accounted for 70% of the total variance: clinical competence, collegiality, professional development, and workplace behavior. For the referring physician survey, three factors accounted for 64.1% of the variance: professional development, professional consultation, and professional responsibility. Two factors on the co-worker questionnaire accounted for 63.2% of the total variance: professional responsibility and patient interaction.

Conclusion: The psychometric examination of the data suggests that the instruments developed to assess radiologists are a feasible way to assess radiology practice and provide evidence for validity and reliability.

© RSNA, 2008

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Mahgerefteh, J. B. Kruskal, C. S. Yam, A. Blachar, and J. Sosna Peer Review in Diagnostic Radiology: Current State and a Vision for the Future RadioGraphics, June 29, 2009; (2009) 295095086. [Abstract] [Full Text]