skip to main content
10.1145/3452853.3452890acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

IORapp: An R tool for Inter-Observer Reliability Assessment of Time and Motion data

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 April 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Direct observational time and motion studies, in which one or more observers continuously observe and record an individual's activities over a certain period of time, can provide valuable insights into work and communication patterns and assist in identification of areas to intervene to support safe and effective work. These studies have increased in number and sophistication, also due to the availability of software tools for PDA to support the observers. A key methodological issue for these studies is the assessment of Inter-Observer Reliability (IOR). IOR is crucial for ensuring reliability of data collection in which multiple observers are involved. In workflow time studies the multivariate, time-stamped and ordered nature of the data limits the applicability of traditional inter-rater reliability measures, and makes this assessment challenging. Measures such as Cohen's Kappa, in fact, are only applicable to one variable at the time, so that high K scores for one aspect can be achieved even if two observers disagree substantially on other variables which are the object of their observation. Secondly, computing these measures first requires either matching pairs of datapoints from different observers viewing the same entity, a problem that cannot be done with perfect certainty, or restructuring the data into fixed-length time window sequences. No single method can address all the different aspects on which observers in time and motion studies can disagree, so one should adopt a composite method. We developed a set of functions and a Shiny app to assist this process for data collected with the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing (WOMBAT) method. The app allows the loading of data from pairs/groups of observers and computes a wide set of agreement measures on both matched data and on time window data. These measures are presented in a dashboard along with interactive visualizations of the observers’ data, and can be saved and plotted over time in a different section.

References

  1. Marcelo Lopetegui, Po-Yin Yen, Albert Lai, 2014. Time motion studies in healthcare: what are we talking about? J. Biomed. Inform. 49 (2014) 292–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.02.017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Scott R Walter, Magdalena Z Raban, William T M Dunsmuir, 2017. Emergency doctors' strategies to manage competing workload demands in an interruptive environment: An observational workflow time study. Appl Ergon. 2017 Jan; 58:454-460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Johanna I Westbrook, Magdalena Z Raban, Scott R Walter, Heather E Douglas. 2018. Task errors by emergency physicians are associated with interruptions, multitasking, fatigue and working memory capacity: a prospective, direct observation study. BMJ Qual Saf. 27:655-663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007333Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Johanna I Westbrook, Enrico Coiera, William T M Dunsmuir, 2010. The impact of interruptions on clinical task completion. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19: 284–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.039255Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Johanna I Westbrook, Amanda Ampt, Leanne Kearney, Marilyn I Rob. 2008. All in a day's work: an observational study to quantify how and with whom doctors on hospital wards spend their time. Med J Aust 2008; 188:506–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01762.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Johanna I Westbrook, Christine Duffield, Ling Li, 2011. How much time do nurses have for patients? A longitudinal study of hospital nurses’ patterns of task time distribution and interactions with other health professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11:319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-319Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tommaso Bellandi, Alessandro Cerri, Giulia Carreras, 2018. Interruptions and multitasking in surgery: a multicentre observational study of the daily work patterns of doctors and nurses. Ergonomics 61(1): 40-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1349934Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Danny Tzu-Yu Wu. 2019. Computer-Based Tools for Recording Time and Motion Data for Assessing Clinical Workflow. In: Zheng K (eds) Cognitive Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Johanna I Westbrook, Amanda Ampt. 2009. Design, application and testing of the Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) to measure clinicians’ patterns of work and communication. Int J Med Inform. 78S: S25-S33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.09.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Marcelo Lopetegui, Po-Yin Yen, Albert M Lai, et el. 2012. Time Capture Tool (TimeCaT): development of a comprehensive application to support data capture for Time Motion Studies. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012;2012:596–605. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kai, Zheng, Elizabeth L Ciemins, Holly H Lanham, Curt Lindberg. 2015. Examining the relationship between health IT and ambulatory care workflow redesign. AHRQ Publication No. 15-0058-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Scott R Walter, William T M Dunsmuir, Johanna I Westbrook. 2019. Inter-observer agreement and reliability assessment for observational studies of clinical work. J Biomed Inform. 100, 103317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103317Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 20, 37-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Anthony J Conger. 1980. Integration and generalisation of Kappa for multiple raters. Psychol. Bull., 88, 322-328. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.88.2.322Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Joseph L Fleiss.1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull., 76, 378-382. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0031619Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Marcelo A Lopetegui, Shasha Bai, Po-Yin Yen, 2013. Inter-observer reliability assessments in time motion studies: the foundation for meaningful clinical workflow analysis. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2013; 889-96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcelo Lopetegui. 2014. Inter-Observer Reliability Assessments in Continuous Observation Time Motion Studies. PhD dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Harald Janson, Ulf Olsson. 2001. A measure of agreement for interval or nominal multivariate observations. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 61, 2001:277-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00131640121971239Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawrence I-Kuei Lin. 1989. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics.;45(1):255–68. DOI: 10.2307/2532051Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Scott R. Walter, William TM Dunsmuir, Magdalena Z Raban, 2019. Understanding Clinical Workflow Through Direct Continuous Observation: Addressing the Unique Statistical Challenges. In: Zheng K. (eds.) Cognitive Informatics. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.2307/2532051Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ECCE '21: Proceedings of the 32nd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics
    April 2021
    235 pages
    ISBN:9781450387576
    DOI:10.1145/3452853

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 26 April 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate56of91submissions,62%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)11
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format