10 Scopus citations


Context: Poorly written radiology reports are common among residents and are a significant challenge for radiology education. While training may improve report quality, a professionally developed reliable and valid scale to measure report quality does not exist. Objectives: To develop a measurement tool for report quality, the quality of report scale, with rigorous validation through empirical data. Methods: A research team of an experienced psychometrician and six senior radiologists conducted qualitative and quantitative studies. Five items were identified for the quality of report scale, each measuring a distinct aspect of report quality. Two dedicated training sessions were designed and implemented to help residents generate high-quality reports. In a blinded fashion, the quality of report scale was applied to 804 randomly selected reports issued before (n = 403) and after (n = 401) training. Full-scale psychometrical assessments were implemented onto the quality of report scale’s item- and scale-scores from the reports. The quality of report scale scores were correlated with report professionalism and attendings’ preference and were compared pre-/post-training. Results: The quality of report scale showed sound psychometrical properties, with high validity and reliability. Reports with higher quality of report scale score were more professional and preferable by attendings. Training improved the quality of report scale score, empirically validating the quality of report scale further. Conclusion: While succinct and practitioner friendly, the quality of report scale is a reliable and valid measure of radiology report quality and has the potential to be easily adapted to other fields such as pathology, where similar training would be beneficial.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number2050312114563101
JournalSAGE Open Medicine
StatePublished - 2014

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • General Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'A succinct rating scale for radiology report quality'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this