A 2-year study of gram stain competency assessment in 40 clinical laboratories

We used a computer-based competency assessment tool for Gram stain interpretation to assess the performance of 278 laboratory staff from 40 laboratories on 40 multiple-choice questions. We report test reliability, mean scores, median, item difficulty, discrimination, and analysis of the highest- and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of clinical pathology 2006, Vol.125 (1), p.28-33
Hauptverfasser: GOOD-YEAR, Nancy, KIM, Sara, REEVES, Mary, ASTION, Michael L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 33
container_issue 1
container_start_page 28
container_title American journal of clinical pathology
container_volume 125
creator GOOD-YEAR, Nancy
KIM, Sara
REEVES, Mary
ASTION, Michael L
description We used a computer-based competency assessment tool for Gram stain interpretation to assess the performance of 278 laboratory staff from 40 laboratories on 40 multiple-choice questions. We report test reliability, mean scores, median, item difficulty, discrimination, and analysis of the highest- and lowest-scoring questions. The questions were reliable (KR-20 coefficient, 0.80). Overall mean score was 88% (range, 63%-98%). When categorized by cell type, the means were host cells, 93%; other cells (eg, yeast), 92%; gram-positive, 90%; and gram-negative, 88%. When categorized by type of interpretation, the means were other (eg, underdecolorization), 92%; identify by structure (eg, bacterial morphologic features), 91%; and identify by name (eg, genus and species), 87%. Of the 6 highest-scoring questions (mean scores, > or = 99%) 5 were identify by structure and 1 was identify by name. Of the 6 lowest-scoring questions (mean scores, < 75%) 5 were gram-negative and 1 was host cells. By type of interpretation, 2 were identify by structure and 4 were identify by name. Computer-based Gram stain competency assessment examinations are reliable. Our analysis helps laboratories identify areas for continuing education in Gram stain interpretation and will direct future revisions of the tests.
doi_str_mv 10.1309/40WD3015CH1RYH58
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67665400</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67665400</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2848-79174698803439119db9eca643fbd1557d252eef4ceb7eee414ecf1f532e69c43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1LxDAQhoMo7rp69yS56K06-WjTHGX9WGFREEU8lTSdSKUfa9Ie-u-N7MKCp2GY5x1eHkLOGVwzAfpGwsedAJYuV-z1c5XmB2TOtBSJUpwfkjkA8EQzJWbkJIRvAMZzkMdkxjKZc53nc_J8S3kyofE0DGM10d7RL2_auJm6o7ZvNzhgZydqQsAQWuwGGg8SqG3qrramoY0pe2-G3tcYTsmRM03As91ckPeH-7flKlm_PD4tb9eJ5bnMExVLySwWACGFZkxXpUZrMilcWbE0VRVPOaKTFkuFiJJJtI65VHDMtJViQa62fze-_xkxDEVbB4tNYzrsx1BkKstSCRBB2ILW9yF4dMXG163xU8Gg-HNY_HcYIxe732PZYrUP7KRF4HIHmBAFOG86W4c9p6RSsan4BTqmeQY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67665400</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A 2-year study of gram stain competency assessment in 40 clinical laboratories</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>GOOD-YEAR, Nancy ; KIM, Sara ; REEVES, Mary ; ASTION, Michael L</creator><creatorcontrib>GOOD-YEAR, Nancy ; KIM, Sara ; REEVES, Mary ; ASTION, Michael L</creatorcontrib><description>We used a computer-based competency assessment tool for Gram stain interpretation to assess the performance of 278 laboratory staff from 40 laboratories on 40 multiple-choice questions. We report test reliability, mean scores, median, item difficulty, discrimination, and analysis of the highest- and lowest-scoring questions. The questions were reliable (KR-20 coefficient, 0.80). Overall mean score was 88% (range, 63%-98%). When categorized by cell type, the means were host cells, 93%; other cells (eg, yeast), 92%; gram-positive, 90%; and gram-negative, 88%. When categorized by type of interpretation, the means were other (eg, underdecolorization), 92%; identify by structure (eg, bacterial morphologic features), 91%; and identify by name (eg, genus and species), 87%. Of the 6 highest-scoring questions (mean scores, &gt; or = 99%) 5 were identify by structure and 1 was identify by name. Of the 6 lowest-scoring questions (mean scores, &lt; 75%) 5 were gram-negative and 1 was host cells. By type of interpretation, 2 were identify by structure and 4 were identify by name. Computer-based Gram stain competency assessment examinations are reliable. Our analysis helps laboratories identify areas for continuing education in Gram stain interpretation and will direct future revisions of the tests.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9173</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-7722</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1309/40WD3015CH1RYH58</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16482988</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJCPAI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: American Society of Clinical Pathologists</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Computer-Assisted Instruction - methods ; Gentian Violet ; Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification ; Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Laboratories - standards ; Medical Laboratory Science - education ; Medical Laboratory Science - standards ; Medical sciences ; Pathology. Cytology. Biochemistry. Spectrometry. Miscellaneous investigative techniques ; Phenazines ; Professional Competence - standards ; Staining and Labeling - standards ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; United States</subject><ispartof>American journal of clinical pathology, 2006, Vol.125 (1), p.28-33</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2848-79174698803439119db9eca643fbd1557d252eef4ceb7eee414ecf1f532e69c43</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17477532$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16482988$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>GOOD-YEAR, Nancy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIM, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>REEVES, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ASTION, Michael L</creatorcontrib><title>A 2-year study of gram stain competency assessment in 40 clinical laboratories</title><title>American journal of clinical pathology</title><addtitle>Am J Clin Pathol</addtitle><description>We used a computer-based competency assessment tool for Gram stain interpretation to assess the performance of 278 laboratory staff from 40 laboratories on 40 multiple-choice questions. We report test reliability, mean scores, median, item difficulty, discrimination, and analysis of the highest- and lowest-scoring questions. The questions were reliable (KR-20 coefficient, 0.80). Overall mean score was 88% (range, 63%-98%). When categorized by cell type, the means were host cells, 93%; other cells (eg, yeast), 92%; gram-positive, 90%; and gram-negative, 88%. When categorized by type of interpretation, the means were other (eg, underdecolorization), 92%; identify by structure (eg, bacterial morphologic features), 91%; and identify by name (eg, genus and species), 87%. Of the 6 highest-scoring questions (mean scores, &gt; or = 99%) 5 were identify by structure and 1 was identify by name. Of the 6 lowest-scoring questions (mean scores, &lt; 75%) 5 were gram-negative and 1 was host cells. By type of interpretation, 2 were identify by structure and 4 were identify by name. Computer-based Gram stain competency assessment examinations are reliable. Our analysis helps laboratories identify areas for continuing education in Gram stain interpretation and will direct future revisions of the tests.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Computer-Assisted Instruction - methods</subject><subject>Gentian Violet</subject><subject>Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Laboratories - standards</subject><subject>Medical Laboratory Science - education</subject><subject>Medical Laboratory Science - standards</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pathology. Cytology. Biochemistry. Spectrometry. Miscellaneous investigative techniques</subject><subject>Phenazines</subject><subject>Professional Competence - standards</subject><subject>Staining and Labeling - standards</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0002-9173</issn><issn>1943-7722</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1LxDAQhoMo7rp69yS56K06-WjTHGX9WGFREEU8lTSdSKUfa9Ie-u-N7MKCp2GY5x1eHkLOGVwzAfpGwsedAJYuV-z1c5XmB2TOtBSJUpwfkjkA8EQzJWbkJIRvAMZzkMdkxjKZc53nc_J8S3kyofE0DGM10d7RL2_auJm6o7ZvNzhgZydqQsAQWuwGGg8SqG3qrramoY0pe2-G3tcYTsmRM03As91ckPeH-7flKlm_PD4tb9eJ5bnMExVLySwWACGFZkxXpUZrMilcWbE0VRVPOaKTFkuFiJJJtI65VHDMtJViQa62fze-_xkxDEVbB4tNYzrsx1BkKstSCRBB2ILW9yF4dMXG163xU8Gg-HNY_HcYIxe732PZYrUP7KRF4HIHmBAFOG86W4c9p6RSsan4BTqmeQY</recordid><startdate>2006</startdate><enddate>2006</enddate><creator>GOOD-YEAR, Nancy</creator><creator>KIM, Sara</creator><creator>REEVES, Mary</creator><creator>ASTION, Michael L</creator><general>American Society of Clinical Pathologists</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2006</creationdate><title>A 2-year study of gram stain competency assessment in 40 clinical laboratories</title><author>GOOD-YEAR, Nancy ; KIM, Sara ; REEVES, Mary ; ASTION, Michael L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2848-79174698803439119db9eca643fbd1557d252eef4ceb7eee414ecf1f532e69c43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Computer-Assisted Instruction - methods</topic><topic>Gentian Violet</topic><topic>Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Laboratories - standards</topic><topic>Medical Laboratory Science - education</topic><topic>Medical Laboratory Science - standards</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pathology. Cytology. Biochemistry. Spectrometry. Miscellaneous investigative techniques</topic><topic>Phenazines</topic><topic>Professional Competence - standards</topic><topic>Staining and Labeling - standards</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GOOD-YEAR, Nancy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIM, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>REEVES, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ASTION, Michael L</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of clinical pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GOOD-YEAR, Nancy</au><au>KIM, Sara</au><au>REEVES, Mary</au><au>ASTION, Michael L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A 2-year study of gram stain competency assessment in 40 clinical laboratories</atitle><jtitle>American journal of clinical pathology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Clin Pathol</addtitle><date>2006</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>125</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>28</spage><epage>33</epage><pages>28-33</pages><issn>0002-9173</issn><eissn>1943-7722</eissn><coden>AJCPAI</coden><abstract>We used a computer-based competency assessment tool for Gram stain interpretation to assess the performance of 278 laboratory staff from 40 laboratories on 40 multiple-choice questions. We report test reliability, mean scores, median, item difficulty, discrimination, and analysis of the highest- and lowest-scoring questions. The questions were reliable (KR-20 coefficient, 0.80). Overall mean score was 88% (range, 63%-98%). When categorized by cell type, the means were host cells, 93%; other cells (eg, yeast), 92%; gram-positive, 90%; and gram-negative, 88%. When categorized by type of interpretation, the means were other (eg, underdecolorization), 92%; identify by structure (eg, bacterial morphologic features), 91%; and identify by name (eg, genus and species), 87%. Of the 6 highest-scoring questions (mean scores, &gt; or = 99%) 5 were identify by structure and 1 was identify by name. Of the 6 lowest-scoring questions (mean scores, &lt; 75%) 5 were gram-negative and 1 was host cells. By type of interpretation, 2 were identify by structure and 4 were identify by name. Computer-based Gram stain competency assessment examinations are reliable. Our analysis helps laboratories identify areas for continuing education in Gram stain interpretation and will direct future revisions of the tests.</abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>American Society of Clinical Pathologists</pub><pmid>16482988</pmid><doi>10.1309/40WD3015CH1RYH58</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9173
ispartof American journal of clinical pathology, 2006, Vol.125 (1), p.28-33
issn 0002-9173
1943-7722
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67665400
source MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Computer-Assisted Instruction - methods
Gentian Violet
Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation & purification
Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation & purification
Humans
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Laboratories - standards
Medical Laboratory Science - education
Medical Laboratory Science - standards
Medical sciences
Pathology. Cytology. Biochemistry. Spectrometry. Miscellaneous investigative techniques
Phenazines
Professional Competence - standards
Staining and Labeling - standards
Surveys and Questionnaires - standards
United States
title A 2-year study of gram stain competency assessment in 40 clinical laboratories
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T14%3A22%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%202-year%20study%20of%20gram%20stain%20competency%20assessment%20in%2040%20clinical%20laboratories&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20clinical%20pathology&rft.au=GOOD-YEAR,%20Nancy&rft.date=2006&rft.volume=125&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=28&rft.epage=33&rft.pages=28-33&rft.issn=0002-9173&rft.eissn=1943-7722&rft.coden=AJCPAI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1309/40WD3015CH1RYH58&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67665400%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67665400&rft_id=info:pmid/16482988&rfr_iscdi=true