Skip Navigation



Health Education Research Advance Access published online on October 12, 2005
Health Education Research, doi:10.1093/her/cyh058
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/2/219    most recent
cyh058v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
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 Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Molleman, G. R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Oosterveld, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Molleman, G. R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Oosterveld, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received November 29, 2004
Accepted August 22, 2005

Original article

Project quality rating by experts and practitioners: experience with Preffi 2.0 as a quality assessment instrument

Gerard R. M. Molleman 1*, Louk W. H. Peters 1, Clemens M. H. Hosman 2, Gerjo J. Kok 3, and Paul Oosterveld 4

1 Netherlands Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Centre for Knowledge and Quality Management, PO Box 500, NL-3440 AM Woerden, the Netherlands
2 Prevention Research Centre, Department of Health Education and Promotion, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
3 Faculty of Psychology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands
4 Methodology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Gerard R. M. Molleman, E-mail: gmolleman{at}nigz.nl


  Abstract

Preffi 2.0 is an evidence-based Dutch quality assessment instrument for health promotion interventions. It is mainly intended for both planning and assessing one's own projects but can also be used to assess other people's projects (external use). This article reports a study on the reliability of Preffi as an external quality assessment instrument. Preffi is used to assess quality at three levels: (i) specific criteria, (ii) clusters of criteria and (iii) entire projects. The study compared Preffi-based assessments of 20 projects by three practitioners with their intuitive assessments of the same projects and with assessments by three experts, which were to be used as external criteria. The intuitive assessments only related to the cluster and project levels. Our main hypothesis was that intuitive assessments by practitioners would be less reliable and accurate than their Preffi-based assessments and the experts' assessments. On the whole, we failed to confirm this hypothesis: the experts' assessments proved less reliable and accurate than the practitioners' intuitive and Preffi-based assessments and differed too much from each other to be used as external criteria. The Preffi-based assessments by the practitioners had an acceptable generalizability coefficient (G) and accuracy (standard error of measurement). At the level of the entire project, two assessors are needed to produce sufficiently reliable and accurate assessments, whereas three are needed for assessment at cluster level. The study also showed that different assessors use different perspectives and base their assessment on a variety of aspects. This was regarded as inevitable and even useful by the assessors themselves. Discussions between assessors are important to achieve consensus. The article suggests some improvements to Preffi to further increase its reliability.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
E Koppelaar, J J Knibbe, H S Miedema, and A Burdorf
Determinants of implementation of primary preventive interventions on patient handling in healthcare: a systematic review
Occup. Environ. Med., June 1, 2009; 66(6): 353 - 360.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.