Studnicki J, Saywell R
J Med Educ. 1978 Jun;53(6):480-6.
A modified Payne process and the JCAH intermediate outcome medical audits were applied to 6,980 cases in eight diagnostic categories within 22 hospitals, representing 1,321 attending physicians. Overall correlations between the two audits differed substantially from diagnosis to diagnosis, allowing for generally inconsistent and conflicting results when applied to a specific research question. Methods are illustrated for comparing the relative scaling (harshness) and sensitivity (discriminating power) of these two audit methods. The effects of the specificity of items, total number of items, outcome versus process indicators, and weights of items on the measurement characteristics of the audit methods are also discussed.
一种改良的佩恩流程和联合委员会认证医院协会（JCAH）的中期结果医学审计应用于22家医院的8个诊断类别的6980例病例，涉及1321名主治医生。两种审计之间的总体相关性在不同诊断之间存在很大差异，因此在应用于特定研究问题时，结果通常不一致且相互矛盾。文中举例说明了比较这两种审计方法的相对尺度（严格程度）和敏感性（辨别力）的方法。还讨论了项目特异性、项目总数、结果指标与过程指标以及项目权重对审计方法测量特征的影响。
