Related Experiment Videos
Quality assessment in support services: do practitioners concur with expert consensus?
1Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, West Roxbury, MA.
QRB. Quality Review Bulletin
|January 1, 1991
Summary
Therapeutic recreation (TR) quality assessment measures show agreement between experts and practitioners, especially for highly rated items. This suggests some universal standards are needed, while others can be adapted for specific settings.
Area of Science:
- Health Services Research
- Recreation Therapy
- Quality Improvement
Background:
- Quality assessment is crucial for therapeutic recreation (TR) services.
- Understanding the alignment between expert recommendations and practitioner application of quality measures is vital for effective service delivery.
- Existing quality assessment measures in TR require evaluation for their practical utility and importance.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the concordance between TR experts and practitioners regarding the importance of quality assessment measures.
- To compare expert-identified quality assessment elements and indicators with their actual use by practitioners in Veterans Affairs Recreation Services.
- To inform the development of effective quality assessment programs in therapeutic recreation.
Main Methods:
- A survey was conducted among TR practitioners nationwide within Veterans Affairs Recreation Services.
- Practitioners' reported usage of quality assessment measures was compared with expert opinions from a prior study.
- Statistical analysis was used to determine the degree of agreement between expert importance ratings and practitioner frequency of use.
Main Results:
- Concordance between expert importance ratings and practitioner use was highest for the most critical elements and indicators identified by experts.
- Agreement was lowest for elements and indicators deemed least important by experts.
- A subset of highly important quality assessment measures demonstrated significant agreement, suggesting potential universal applicability.
Conclusions:
- A core set of "important" quality assessment elements and indicators may be universally applicable across TR settings.
- Other quality assessment measures can be adapted or considered optional to suit individual facility needs.
- Further research is recommended to explore optimal quality assessment strategies integrating both expert knowledge and practitioner experience in TR.