Comparison of different rating scales for the use in Delphi studies: different scales lead to different consensus and show different test-retest reliability

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Richard Wagner¹  Toni Lange²  Jochen Schmitt²  Christian Kopkow²  Johannes Stöve³  Sascha Gravius⁴  Hanns-Peter Scharf⁴  Klaus-Peter Günther⁵  Jörg Lützner⁵ 

[1] Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus;Center for Evidence-based Healthcare, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus;Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery;Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University;University Center of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medicine Carl Gustav Carus Dresden;

关键词: Delphi;    Consensus;    Reliability;    Outcomes;    Rating scales;    Treatment goals;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-020-0912-8

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Consensus-orientated Delphi studies are increasingly used in various areas of medical research using a variety of different rating scales and criteria for reaching consensus. We explored the influence of using three different rating scales and different consensus criteria on the results for reaching consensus and assessed the test-retest reliability of these scales within a study aimed at identification of global treatment goals for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods We conducted a two-stage study consisting of two surveys and consecutively included patients scheduled for TKA from five German hospitals. Patients were asked to rate 19 potential treatment goals on different rating scales (three-point, five-point, nine-point). Surveys were conducted within a 2 week period prior to TKA, order of questions (scales and treatment goals) was randomized. Results Eighty patients (mean age 68 ± 10 years; 70% females) completed both surveys. Different rating scales (three-point, five-point and nine-point rating scale) lead to different consensus despite moderate to high correlation between rating scales (r = 0.65 to 0.74). Final consensus was highly influenced by the choice of rating scale with 14 (three-point), 6 (five-point), 15 (nine-point) out of 19 treatment goals reaching the pre-defined 75% consensus threshold. The number of goals reaching consensus also highly varied between rating scales for other consensus thresholds. Overall, concordance differed between the three-point (percent agreement [p] = 88.5%, weighted kappa [k] = 0.63), five-point (p = 75.3%, k = 0.47) and nine-point scale (p = 67.8%, k = 0.78). Conclusion This study provides evidence that consensus depends on the rating scale and consensus threshold within one population. The test-retest reliability of the three rating scales investigated differs substantially between individual treatment goals. This variation in reliability can become a potential source of bias in consensus studies. In our setting aimed at capturing patients’ treatment goals for TKA, the three-point scale proves to be the most reasonable choice, as its translation into the clinical context is the most straightforward among the scales. Researchers conducting Delphi studies should be aware that final consensus is substantially influenced by the choice of rating scale and consensus criteria.

【 授权许可】

Unknown