Williamson J W, Braswell H R, Horn S D
Med Care. 1979 Apr;17(4):331-46. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197904000-00002.
The validation of a structured group judgment procedure to establish priorities for quality assurance activities was undertaken in six medical institutions in the United States. Validation focused on the extent to which health improvement could be documented by outcome-based projects focusing on priority topics. Predictive (criterion-related) validity was sought by analyzing five successively more stringent levels of evidence: 1) feasibility of implementing a quality assessment project within the topic areas selected by the prioity procedure; 2) accuracy of identifying health deficiencies or strengths; 3) verification of establishing correctable causes of health deficiencies; 4) capability of effecting significant improvement of health deficiencies; and 5) credibility of evidence that improvement achieved is directly attributable to corrective actions taken. Within the limits of generalizability, predictive validity was documented at every level of analysis. It is recommended that the structured group judgment process used in this study be more thoroughly evaluated and considered for quality assurance planning purposes.
在美国的六家医疗机构中，对一种用于确定质量保证活动优先级的结构化小组判断程序进行了验证。验证的重点在于，基于优先主题的以结果为导向的项目能够在多大程度上证明健康状况得到改善。通过分析五个依次更为严格的证据水平来寻求预测性（与标准相关的）效度：1）在优先级程序选定的主题领域内实施质量评估项目的可行性；2）识别健康缺陷或优势的准确性；3）确认导致健康缺陷的可纠正原因；4）显著改善健康缺陷的能力；5）所实现的改善直接归因于所采取的纠正措施的证据的可信度。在可推广性的范围内，在每个分析层面都记录了预测性效度。建议对本研究中使用的结构化小组判断过程进行更全面的评估，并将其用于质量保证规划目的。
