首页> 外文期刊>Journal of occupational and environmental medicine >Reliability of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
【24h】

Reliability of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.

机译:AMA永久性损伤评估指南的可靠性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: AMA's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment is used to rate loss of function and determine compensation and ability to work after injury or illness; however, there are few studies that evaluate reliability or construct validity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability of the fifth and sixth editions for back injury; to determine best methods for further study. RESULTS: Intra-class correlation coefficients within and between raters were relatively high. There was wider variability for individual cases. Impairment ratings were lower and correlated less well for the sixth edition, though confidence intervals overlapped. CONCLUSIONS: The sixth edition may not be an improvement over the fifth. A research agenda should include investigations of reliability and construct validity for different body sites and organ systems along the entire rating scale and among different categories of raters.
机译:背景:AMA的《永久性损伤评估指南》用于评估功能丧失并确定受伤或患病后的补偿和工作能力;但是,很少有研究评估信度或结构效度。目的:评估第五版和第六版对背部伤害的可靠性;确定进一步研究的最佳方法。结果:评估者内部和之间的类内相关系数相对较高。个别情况的差异更大。尽管置信区间重叠,但第六版的减损等级较低且相关性较低。结论:第六版可能不是第五版的改进。研究议程应包括对整个评级范围内以及不同类别的评级者之间不同身体部位和器官系统的信度和结构效度进行调查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号