Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts

被引:116
作者
van Rooyen, S
Black, N
Godlee, F
机构
[1] BMJ Editorial, London WC1H 9JR, England
[2] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Publ Hlth & Policy, London WC1, England
关键词
peer review; reliability; validity; review quality; internal consistency; respondent burden;
D O I
10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00047-5
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Research on the value of peer review is limited by the lack of a validated instrument to measure the quality of reviews. The aim of this study was to develop a simple, reliable, and valid scale that could be used in studies of peer review. A Review Quality Instrument (RQI) that assesses the extent to which a reviewer has commented on five aspects of-a manuscript (importance of the research question, originality of the paper, strengths and weaknesses of the method, presentation, interpretation of results) and on two aspects of the review (constructiveness and substantiation of comments) was devised and tested. Its internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.84). The mean total score (based on the seven items each scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 to 5) had good test-retest (K-w = 1.00) and inter-rater (K-w = 0.83) reliability. There was no evidence of floor or ceiling effects, construct validity was evident, and the respondent burden was acceptable (2-10 minutes). Although improvements to the RQI should be pursued, the instrument can be recommended for use in the study of peer review. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:625 / 629
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? [J].
Black, N ;
van Rooyen, S ;
Godlee, F ;
Smith, R ;
Evans, S .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03) :231-233
[3]  
Cronbach LJ, 1960, ESSENTIALS PSYCHOL T
[4]   The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions [J].
Downs, SH ;
Black, N .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1998, 52 (06) :377-384
[6]   A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings [J].
Friedman, M .
ANNALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, 1940, 11 :86-92
[7]  
McDowell I, 1996, J Health Serv Res Policy, V1, P238
[8]   THE EFFECTS OF BLINDING ON THE QUALITY OF PEER-REVIEW - A RANDOMIZED TRIAL [J].
MCNUTT, RA ;
EVANS, AT ;
FLETCHER, RH ;
FLETCHER, SW .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (10) :1371-1376
[9]   ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS - AN ANNOTATED-BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCALES AND CHECKLISTS [J].
MOHER, D ;
JADAD, AR ;
NICHOL, G ;
PENMAN, M ;
TUGWELL, P ;
WALSH, S .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1995, 16 (01) :62-73
[10]  
*NHS EX, 1997, ANN REP NHS HLTH TEC