1982
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1635401
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Index for Rating Predictive Accuracy of Screening Tests

Abstract: This paper proposes a new pair of indices, the »predictive powers«, for measuring the predictive accuracy (predictivity) of screening tests.Sensitivity and specificity are indices for measuring the validity of a test. They give the probability of a certain test result given a substance of known condition (a carcinogen or a non-carcinogen). They do not describe the predictive accuracy of a test, which is the probability of a certain condition (a carcinogen or a non-carcinogen) given a known test result. Predict… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, a screening result is not comparable with the result of an accurate diagnostic assessment. The aim of a screening is not to formulate diagnoses but to identify a population at risk, who should then participate in a more specific assessment, which has a good correlation in finding people who need a diagnosis and excluding people who do not need any further assessment (Wood, Flowers, Meyers & Hill, ; Choi, ; ; ). In order to meet the previously mentioned criteria, (sensitivity and specificity), the text used for our screening task was selected on the basis of the average reading skills of primary school students.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a screening result is not comparable with the result of an accurate diagnostic assessment. The aim of a screening is not to formulate diagnoses but to identify a population at risk, who should then participate in a more specific assessment, which has a good correlation in finding people who need a diagnosis and excluding people who do not need any further assessment (Wood, Flowers, Meyers & Hill, ; Choi, ; ; ). In order to meet the previously mentioned criteria, (sensitivity and specificity), the text used for our screening task was selected on the basis of the average reading skills of primary school students.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…positive predictive power K bzw. die negative predictive power K 0[25] bestimmt und getestet, ob der Wert signifikant gröûer als 1 ausfällt. Diese Vorhersagegröûen berechnen sich aus 613 .323 .710 .516 .677 .516 .452 10 .452 .452 .355 .613 .419 .516 .484 .484 .774 11 .516 .839 .484 .724 .548 .645 .290 .290 .645 .548 12 .516 .581 .419 .613 .613 .516 .484 .484 .581 .677 .742 13 .581 .645 .484 .613 .613 .581 .419 .419 .645 .613 .742 .742 14 .613 .806 .516 .581 .581 .613 .452 .452 .548 .452 .839 .645 .710 15 .484 .355 .516 .258 .323 .419 .581 .645 .355 .452 .258 .323 .387 .355 16 .387 .710 .613 .484 .484 .645 .419 .419 .581 .548 .613 .613 .677 .581 .516 17 .613 .677 .581 .581 .581 .613 .516 .516 .484 .452 .710 .581 .581 .742 .484 .645 18 .581 .839 .548 .613 .613 .645 .355 .355 .581 .484 .871 .613 .677 .839 .323 .677 .645 19 .419 .419 .581 .452 .387 .355 .452 .516 .355 .452 .387 .452 .452 .290 .677 .581 .419 .323 .645 .484 .516 .419 22 .613 .677 .452 .581 .645 .677 .516 .516 .677 .581 .710 .645 .645 .677 .355 .645 .613 .774 .290 .452 .581 23 .516 .515 .419 .613 .548 .516 .484 .548 .645 .548 .484 .484 .613 .452 .452 .613 .516 .484 .516 .355 .484 .581 24 .548 .290 .452 .387 .581 .419 .710 .710 .484 .516 .194 .452 .387 .226 .613 .581 .290 .323 .548 .516 .516 .484 .581 Übereinstimmungskoeffizienten der Befolger mit den hypothetisch prädiktiven Merkmalen hervor.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%