Diabetologists' judgments of diabetic control: reliability and mathematical simulation.
In study 1, laboratory and supervised blood or urine test data from actual cases were used to develop patient profiles. Seven diabetologists from the same institution rated the diabetic control of 125 profiles on a four-point scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent). Six of the 7 diabetologists demonstrated adequate intra- and interrater reliability. Study 2 assessed the reliability of judgments of diabetic control made by diabetologists working in two different settings. There were 9 raters from institution 1 and 8 from institution 2. The impact of the amount and type of information on judgment reliability was evaluated by developing two types of profiles. The test form contained only laboratory and supervised blood or urine test data similar to that utilized in study 1. The history form contained this information as well as other descriptive data typically available to diabetologists. The 17 diabetologists rated 125 anonymous profiles on each of two separate occasions approximately 1 wk apart. On one occasion they rated profiles presented on the test form. On the other occasion they rated profiles presented on the history form. As in study 1, the diabetologist raters demonstrated adequate intra- and interrater reliability. Intrarater reliability was somewhat better when rating test form profiles compared with history form profiles. Reliability was not higher within than between institutions. An analysis of the relative contribution of different diabetes control indices to the diabetologists' judgments indicated that HbA1 influenced raters' judgments at both institutions more than any other single variable.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D003922:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / Q000628:therapy*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male