Training and centralized feedback for study coordinators significantly reduced average examiner errors on a neuropsychological test battery from 4.42 on the first six protocols to 1.83 on the last six.
Observational
Yes
Does centralized training and feedback reduce examiner errors in administering a neuropsychological test battery among research coordinators?
Centralized training and ongoing feedback significantly reduce administration errors in neuropsychological testing by research coordinators, though scoring errors may require comprehensive review.
Absolute Event Rate: 1.83% vs 4.42%
Research study coordinators from 17 sites participating in a cardiac surgery study were trained to administer and score a brief neuropsychological test battery. Results were sent to the study's centralized laboratory for review and feedback. The average examiner errors on the first six protocols were compared with the average errors on the last six protocols over 12 months for each site. Overall, errors for the first six protocols were 4.42, and errors for the last six protocols were 1.83, representing a significant overall decline. Errors for instruction, administration, and recording showed a significant decrease over time. Despite ongoing feedback to examiners, scoring errors did not decline significantly overall; this suggests that a review of all protocols is necessary to achieve reliable scoring. However, when examiners' number of protocols completed was compared with number of scoring errors per protocol, there was a trend for examiners who had completed more protocols to show more improvement in scoring.
Kozora et al. (Thu,) conducted a observational in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Procedures. Training and centralized feedback vs. First six protocols (baseline) was evaluated on Average examiner errors. Training and centralized feedback for study coordinators significantly reduced average examiner errors on a neuropsychological test battery from 4.42 on the first six protocols to 1.83 on the last six.