Table 2.
Descriptive results for the formal review of the manual (n = 11; missing = 1)
| Criterion | M | Range | M | M | M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How do you judge … | IM/GP | O/S | N/P | ||
| … the structure of the manual | 1.8 | 1–3 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 1.3 |
| … the extent of the manual | 2.6 | 1–5 | 1.8 | 3.8 | 2.3 |
| … the layout of the manual | 2.3 | 1–4 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 3.0 |
| … the clarity of the quality domains and their test items | 2.1 | 1–3 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
| … the understandability of the manuals‘introduction | 2.1 | 1–4 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| … the understandability of the test items | 3.2 | 2–5 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 2.3 |
| … the manual in total | 2.4 | 1–3 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.4 |
six-point rating scale (1 = very good; 6 = insufficient). M Mean, IM/GP Internal medicine/general practitioner, O/S Orthopaedic/surgery, N/P Neurology/psychiatry