Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 26, 2026

Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems
Published on: June 13, 2025
Validity evidence for Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool Revised (QIKAT-R) scores: consequences of rater
Charles Kassardjian1, Yoon Soo Park2, Sherri Braksick3
1Department of Neurology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Objectives:
To develop neurology scenarios for use with the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool Revised (QIKAT-R), gather and evaluate validity evidence, and project the impact of scenario number, rater number and rater type on score reliability.
Methods:
Six neurological case scenarios were developed. Residents were randomly assigned three scenarios before and after a quality improvement (QI) course in 2015 and 2016. For each scenario, residents crafted an aim statement, selected a measure and proposed a change to address a quality gap. Responses were scored by six faculty raters (two with and four without QI expertise) using the QIKAT-R. Validity evidence from content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences was collected. A generalisability (G) study examined sources of score variability, and decision analyses estimated projected reliability for different numbers of raters and scenarios and raters with and without QI expertise.
Results:
Raters scored 163 responses from 28 residents. The mean QIKAT-R score was 5.69 (SD 1.06). G-coefficient and Phi-coefficient were 0.65 and 0.60, respectively. Interrater reliability was fair for raters without QI expertise (intraclass correlation = 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72) and acceptable for raters with QI expertise (intraclass correlation = 0.66, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88). Postcourse scores were significantly higher than precourse scores (6.05, SD 1.48 vs 5.22, SD 1.5; p < 0.001). Sufficient reliability for formative assessment (G-coefficient > 0.60) could be achieved by three raters scoring six scenarios or two raters scoring eight scenarios, regardless of rater QI expertise.
Conclusions:
Validity evidence was sufficient to support the use of the QIKAT-R with multiple scenarios and raters to assess resident QI knowledge application for formative or low-stakes summative purposes. The results provide practical information for educators to guide implementation decisions.
More Related Videos
10:39Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
10:45The Mouse Stroke Unit Protocol with Standardized Neurological Scoring for Translational Mouse Stroke Studies
Published on: February 7, 2025
Related Concept Videos
The Evidence for Evolution
Reliability and Validity
Timing and Consequences on Behavior
Humans, however, can respond to delayed reinforcers. We often make decisions between immediate small rewards and delayed larger rewards. This ability to delay gratification is a significant...
Introduction to z Scores
z scores...
Introduction to z Scores
z scores...
z Scores and Area Under the Curve