Deze casestudie geeft inzicht in verschillende soorten kennis die kenmerkend zijn voor applied design research. Er wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen kennis over de huidige situatie, over wenselijke alternatieven en over effectieve oplossingen om daar te komen. Ofwel, kennis hoe het is, kennis over hoe het kan zijn en kennis over hoe het zal zijn als we effectieve oplossingen toepassen. Elk van deze soorten kennis heeft andere kwaliteitscriteria.
Introduction: Zygomatic fractures can be diagnosed with either computed tomography (CT) or direct digital radiography (DR). The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of CT dose reduction on the preference for facial CT versus DR for accurate diagnosis of isolated zygomatic fractures. Materials and methods: Eight zygomatic fractures were inflicted on four human cadavers with a free fall impactor technique. The cadavers were scanned using eight CT protocols, which were identical except for a systematic decrease in radiation dose per protocol, and one DR protocol. Single axial CT images were displayed alongside a DR image of the same fracture creating a total of 64 dual images for comparison. A total of 54 observers, including radiologists, radiographers and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, made a forced choice for either CT or DR. Results: Forty out of 54 observers (74%) preferred CT over DR (all with P < 0.05). Preference for CT was maintained even when radiation dose reduced from 147.4 mSv to 46.4 mSv (DR dose was 6.9 mSv). Only a single out of all raters preferred DR (P ¼ 0.0003). The remaining 13 observers had no significant preference. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that preference for axial CT over DR is not affected by substantial (~70%) CT dose reduction for the assessment of zygomatico-orbital fractures.
MULTIFILE
Formula scoring (FS) is the use of a don't know option (DKO) with subtraction of points for wrong answers. Its effect on construct validity and reliability of progress test scores, is subject of discussion. Choosing a DKO may not only be affected by knowledge level, but also by risk taking tendency, and may thus introduce construct-irrelevant variance into the knowledge measurement. On the other hand, FS may result in more reliable test scores. To evaluate the impact of FS on construct validity and reliability of progress test scores, a progress test for radiology residents was divided into two tests of 100 parallel items (A and B). Each test had a FS and a number-right (NR) version, A-FS, B-FS, A-NR, and B-NR. Participants (337) were randomly divided into two groups. One group took test A-FS followed by B-NR, and the second group test B-FS followed by A-NR. Evidence for impaired construct validity was sought in a hierarchical regression analysis by investigating how much of the participants' FS-score variance was explained by the DKO-score, compared to the contribution of the knowledge level (NR-score), while controlling for Group, Gender, and Training length. Cronbach's alpha was used to estimate NR and FS-score reliability per year group. NR score was found to explain 27 % of the variance of FS [F(1,332) = 219.2, p < 0.0005], DKO-score, and the interaction of DKO and Gender were found to explain 8 % [F(2,330) = 41.5, p < 0.0005], and the interaction of DKO and NR 1.6 % [F(1,329) = 16.6, p < 0.0005], supporting our hypothesis that FS introduces construct-irrelevant variance into the knowledge measurement. However, NR-scores showed considerably lower reliabilities than FS-scores (mean year-test group Cronbach's alphas were 0.62 and 0.74, respectively). Decisions about FS with progress tests should be a careful trade-off between systematic and random measurement error.
