Evans Richard, Elwyn Glyn, Edwards Adrian
Primary Care Group, Swansea Clinical School, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea SA2 8PP.
BMJ. 2004 May 22;328(7450):1240. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7450.1240.
To identify existing instruments for rating peers (professional colleagues) in medical practice and to evaluate them in terms of how they have been developed, their validity and reliability, and their appropriateness for use in clinical settings, including primary care.
Systematic literature review.
Electronic search techniques, snowball sampling, and correspondence with specialists.
The peer assessment instruments identified were evaluated in terms of how they were developed and to what extent, if relevant, their psychometric properties had been determined.
A search of six electronic databases identified 4566 possible articles. After appraisal of the abstracts and in depth assessment of 42 articles, three rating scales fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were fully appraised. The three instruments did not meet established standards of instrument development, as no reference was made to a theoretical framework and the published psychometric data omitted essential work on construct and criterion validity. Rater training was absent, and guidance consisted of short written instructions. Two instruments were developed for a hospital setting in the United States and one for a primary care setting in Canada.
The instruments developed to date for physicians to evaluate characteristics of colleagues need further assessment of validity before their widespread use is merited.
识别现有的用于评估医疗实践中同行（专业同事）的工具，并从其开发方式、有效性和可靠性以及在包括初级保健在内的临床环境中的适用性方面对其进行评估。
系统文献综述。
电子检索技术、滚雪球抽样以及与专家通信。
根据所识别的同行评估工具的开发方式以及在相关情况下其心理测量特性的确定程度进行评估。
对六个电子数据库的检索识别出4566篇可能的文章。在对摘要进行评估并对42篇文章进行深入评估后，三个评分量表符合纳入标准并得到全面评估。这三个工具未达到既定的工具开发标准，因为未提及理论框架，且已发表的心理测量数据遗漏了关于结构效度和标准效度的重要工作。没有评分者培训，指导仅包括简短的书面说明。两个工具是为美国的医院环境开发的，一个是为加拿大的初级保健环境开发的。
迄今为止为医生评估同事特征而开发的工具在广泛使用之前需要进一步评估其有效性。
