| Autor: |
Steen, Lydia P. E. van der, Hage, J. Joris, Kon, Moshe, Monstrey, Stan J. |
| Zdroj: |
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; January 2004, Vol. 113 Issue: 1 p353-359, 7p |
| Abstrakt: |
In 1999, the European Association of Plastic Surgeons accepted a structured method to assess and select the abstracts that are submitted for its yearly scientific meeting. The two criteria used to evaluate whether such a selection method is accurate were reliability and validity. The authors previously established this method to be reliable on the basis of a prospective evaluation of the selection process used for the 2000 meeting of the European Association of Plastic Surgeons. It is more difficult to assess the validity of this method because there is no objective standard of quality of a scientific abstract against which the accuracy of selection can be assessed. This study statistically evaluated the accuracy of the meeting participants’ assessment of presentations made during the meeting as the criterion standard for abstract selection on the basis of data obtained from the 2002 selection process. The authors evaluated the interobserver repeatability among five meeting participants of selecting the best presentations, the validity of the method of abstract selection after this criterion standard had been established, and the validity of reviewers’ rating of abstracts as indicators of the scientific value of the actual presentations. The authors conclude that the assessment of platform presentations at a plastic surgical meeting is reliable. Accepting this assessment as the criterion standard, however, they could not prove the validity of their selection method or the validity of the reviewers’ rating of abstracts as an indicator of the scientific value of the actual presentations. |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
