In research methodology, epistemology is concerned with the question how humans generate knowledge. In facility management (FM) research, for instance, it deals with the evaluation criteria such as validity and reliability by which researchers discriminate good knowledge from bad. The objective of this paper is to add to the scholarly methodological aspects in FM research. The paper takes a postpositivist stance and pre-supposes that scholars are able to discover what happens in FM through the categorization and scientific measurement of affective responses. It applies a method by which scholars are able to develop good knowledge and by which talented bachelor students are involved in FM research.In this study 26 semi-structured interviews were conducted at nine different organizations in the Netherlands. Interviews, which focused on office environments and productivity, were conducted in pairs by Honours students. This paper reports on methodological issues of this study. Data collection and analysis by different researchers revealed serious threats to validity and reliability. Consequently an interrater agreement (IRA), measuring the degree of agreement between raters, was introduced to reveal and overcome differences in interpretations.In this paper the difficulties of achieving good agreement were considered. Adjustment between raters and clear demarcation of constructs are necessary. A synopsis of usage and reporting of qualitative interview approaches is shown.
DOCUMENT
There is emerging evidence that the performance of risk assessment instruments is weaker when used for clinical decision‐making than for research purposes. For instance, research has found lower agreement between evaluators when the risk assessments are conducted during routine practice. We examined the field interrater reliability of the Short‐Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV). Clinicians in a Dutch secure youth care facility completed START:AV assessments as part of the treatment routine. Consistent with previous literature, interrater reliability of the items and total scores was lower than previously reported in non‐field studies. Nevertheless, moderate to good interrater reliability was found for final risk judgments on most adverse outcomes. Field studies provide insights into the actual performance of structured risk assessment in real‐world settings, exposing factors that affect reliability. This information is relevant for those who wish to implement structured risk assessment with a level of reliability that is defensible considering the high stakes.
DOCUMENT
The Nociception Coma Scale (NCS) is a pain observation tool, developed for patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) due to acquired brain injury (ABI). The aim of this study was to assess the interrater reliability of the NCS and NCS-R among nurses for the assessment of pain in ABI patients with DOC. A secondary aim was further validation of both scales by assessing its discriminating abilities for the presence or absence of pain. Hospitalized patients with ABI (n = 10) were recorded on film during three conditions: baseline, after tactile stimulation, and after noxious stimulation. All stimulations were part of daily treatment for these patients. The 30 recordings were assessed with the NCS and NCS-R by 27 nurses from three university hospitals in the Netherlands. Each nurse viewed 9 to 12 recordings, totaling 270 assessments. Interrater reliability of the NCS/NCS-R items and total scores were estimated by intraclass correlations (ICC), which showed excellent and equal average measures reliability for the NCS and NCR-R total scores (ICC 0.95), and item scores (range 0.87-0.95). Secondary analysis was performed to assess differences in ICCs among nurses' education and experience and to assess the scales discriminating properties for the presence of pain. The NCS and NCS-R are valid and reproducible scales that can be used by nurses with an associate (of science) in nursing degree or baccalaureate (of science) in nursing degree. It seems that more experience with ABI patients is not a predictor for good agreement in the assessment of the NCS(-R).
DOCUMENT
