Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Research on Social Work Practice
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vourlekis, B.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenblum, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Evaluating the Interrater Reliability of Process Recordings

Betsy Vourlekis

University of Maryland at Baltimore County

James Bembry

University of Maryland at Baltimore County

Gladys Hall

Howard University

Phillip Rosenblum

St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, DC

Process recording is a commonly used tool in social work field practica. However, there is no empirically validated evaluation instrument available to guide practitioners, field instructors, or students in a systematic assessment of such reconstructed interviews. This study investigated the interrater reliability of a rating checklist for process-recorded interviews. Seven experienced field instructors rated single process recordings from 10 students who were unknown to them. Intraclass correlation coefficients revealed little absolute agreement among judges (.37), a modest degree of consistency in judgment (.50), and acceptable reliability for the checklist using ratings averaged across all judges (.88). These low levels of reliability documented difficulties with the subjective interpretation of student clinical skills as assessed by process recordings but suggest the utility of efforts to improve the checklist for use as an evaluative and research tool.

Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 2, No. 2, 198-206 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/104973159200200206
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
G. Holden, K. Barker, G. Rosenberg, and P. Onghena
Assessing Progress Toward Accreditation Related Objectives: Evidence Regarding the Use of Self-Efficacy as an Outcome in the Advanced Concentration Research Curriculum
Research on Social Work Practice, July 1, 2007; 17(4): 456 - 465.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
B. Vourlekis, J. Bembry, G. Hall, and P. Rosenblum
Testing the Reliability and Validity of an Interviewing Skills Evaluation Tool for Use in Practicum
Research on Social Work Practice, October 1, 1996; 6(4): 492 - 503.
[Abstract] [PDF]