Table 4b.
Comparison between the Alternative Five-Point GOS Data Collection Method and the Conventional Structured Interviews: Agreement between a Central Reviewer and Investigators on Rating of Six Sample Case Transcripts
| |
|
Investigator rating |
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert | VS | SD | MD | GR | Agreement | |
| Alternative method (n = 60) | SD | 20 | 100% | |||
| MD | 1 | 29 | 97% | |||
| GR | 1 | 9 | 90% | |||
| Overall agreement 97% (weighted κ = 0.95 and 95% confidence interval 0.89, 1.00) | ||||||
| Alternative method without central monitoring (n = 66) | SD | 22 | 100% | |||
| MD | 5 | 28 | 85% | |||
| GR | 4 | 7 | 64% | |||
| Overall agreement 83% (weighted κ = 0.81 and 95% confidence interval 0.69, 0.92) | ||||||
| Conventional structured interview (n = 66) | SD | 20 | 2 | 91% | ||
| MD | 3 | 25 | 5 | 76% | ||
| GR | 2 | 9 | 82% | |||
Overall agreement 83% (weighted κ = 0.76 and 95% confidence interval 0.63, 0.89).
GR, good recovery; MD, moderate disability; SD, severe disability; VS, vegetative status; GOS, Glasgow Outcome Scale.