Classen Sherrilene, Krasniuk Sarah, Knott Melissa, Alvarez Liliana, Monahan Miriam, Morrow Sarah, Danter Tim
Can J Occup Ther. 2016 Dec;83(5):317-325. doi: 10.1177/0008417416663228.
Little empirical support exists for interrater reliability between evaluators from different backgrounds when assessing on-road outcomes of drivers.
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).
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).
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.
This research contributes to empirical support for the on-road assessment.
在评估驾驶员的道路驾驶结果时，不同背景的评估者之间的评分者间信度缺乏实证支持。
我们对一名认证驾驶学校教员（DI）与一名职业治疗师兼认证驾驶员康复专家（CDRS）之间道路驾驶结果的评分者间信度进行了量化。
两位评估者均使用具有两个等级（通过、未通过）的整体评分量表（GRS）、具有四个等级（通过、带建议通过、可补救未通过、未通过）的GRS以及优先错误评分（PERS；按优先顺序排列的最常出现的道路驾驶错误）来评估35名驾驶员（年龄，M = 48.31岁，标准差 = 9.76岁；40%为男性；86%患有多发性硬化症）。
DI与职业治疗师CDRS在具有两个等级的GRS（κ = 0.892，p < 0.0001）、具有四个等级的GRS（κ = 0.952，p < 0.0001）以及PERS（κ = 0.847 - 0.902，p < 0.0001）方面具有高度一致性，表明存在评分者间信度。
本研究为道路驾驶评估的实证支持做出了贡献。
