Table 1 Responses to Final Evaluation
From: Standard setting for a novel esophageal conduit questionnaire: CONDUIT Report Card
% Strongly Agree | % Agree | % Disagree/ Strongly Disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|
1. I understood the purpose of the study. | 27% | 73% | 0% |
2. The instructions and explanations provided by the facilitator were clear. | 9% | 73% | 18% |
3. The training on the standard-setting method gave me the information I needed to complete my assignment. | 9% | 91% | 0% |
4. The Performance Descriptions that were developed prior to the meeting were accurate. | 18% | 55% | 27% |
5. I understood the concept of the borderline patient. | 36% | 64% | 0% |
6. The Performance Descriptions helped me determine how to rate each item. | 18% | 73% | 9% |
7. It was beneficial to have an opportunity for discussion and to review feedback. | 36% | 46% | 18% |
8. The opportunity to provide a second round of ratings (i.e., round 2) helped me feel more confident about my final ratings. | 18% | 64% | 18% |
9. I felt engaged in the process. | 18% | 82% | 0% |
10. I felt comfortable sharing my ideas with the other panelists during the discussions. | 45% | 55% | 0% |
11. I am confident this standard-setting process will produce fair cut scores. | 9% | 73% | 18% |
12. I would be comfortable defending this process to my peers. | 18% | 55% | 27% |
Very influential | Influential | Not influential | |
13. My perception of the severity of symptoms that the items were measuring | 27% | 73% | 0% |
14. The Performance Descriptions | 18% | 64% | 18% |
15. The average ratings of other panelists | 9% | 73% | 18% |
16. Large group discussion after Round 1 | 9% | 73% | 18% |
17. My experience with patients | 55% | 45% | 0% |
Very useful | Useful | Not useful | |
18. Practicing the procedure with real items prior to beginning the actual rating task | 18% | 37% | 45% |
19. Referencing the Performance Descriptions | 9% | 82% | 9% |
20. Large Group discussion after Round 1 | 27% | 64% | 9% |