The Structure of Objectivist Studies - Evaluation Methods in Biomedical Informatics - page 111

2. It is a descriptive study. Sessions on the workstation are the “subjects.”
There is no independent variable. Dependent variables are the extent of
workstation use in each category.
3. It is a correlational study. The patients on the service are the subjects.
The independent variables are the clinical characteristics of the patients;
the dependent variable is the extent of use of information resources.
4. This is also a correlational study. Patients are the subjects. The inde-
pendent variable is the genetic information; the dependent variable is the
diseases they develop. There is, however, no manipulation or experimental
control.
5. Comparative study. Students are the subjects. Independent variable(s)
are the version of the database and time of assessment. The dependent vari-
able is the score on the problem-solving assessment.
References
1. Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics . New Haven: Yale University Press; 1987:viii.
2. Cork RD, Detmer WM, Friedman CP. Development and initial validation of
an instrument to measure physicians' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes
toward computers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:164-176.
3. Friedman CP, Abbas UL. Is medical informatics a mature science? A review of
measurement practice in outcome studies of clinical systems. Int J Med Inf
2003;69:261-272.
4. Michaelis J, Wellek S, Willems JL. Reference standards for software evaluation.
Methods Inf Med 1990;29:289-297.
5. Clarke JR, Webber BL, Gertner A, Rymon KJ. On-line decision support for
emergency trauma management. Proc Symp Comput Applications Med Care
1994;18:1028.
6. Shortliffe E. Computer programs to support medical decisions. JAMA 1987;258:
61-66.
7. Quaglini S, Stefanelli M, Barosi G, Berzuini A. A performance evaluation of the
expert system ANAEMIA. Comp Biomed Res 1987;21:307-323.
8. Walter SD, Irwig LM. Estimation of test error rates, disease prevalence and rel-
ative risk from misclassified data: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;41:923-937.
9. Phelps CD, Hutson A. Estimating diagnostic test accuracy using a “fuzzy gold
standard.” Med Decis Making 1995;15:44-57.
10. Bankowitz RA, McNeil MA, Challinor SM, Parker RC, Kapoor WN, Miller RA.
A computer-assisted medical diagnostic consultation service: implementation
and prospective evaluation of a prototype. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:824-832.
11. Hripcsak G, Wilcox A. Reference standards, judges, and comparison subjects:
Roles for experts in evaluating system performance. J Am Med Inform Assoc
2002;9:1-15.
12. Teach RL, Shortliffe EH. An analysis of physician attitudes regarding computer-
based clinical consultation systems. Comput Biomed Res 1981;14:542-558.
13. Impiccatore P, Pandolfini, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliabilty of health information
for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing
fever in children at home. BMJ 1997;314:1875-1879.