Development and validation of a psychometric scale for assessing PA chest image quality: A pilot study

Radiography

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 312-317

  Mraity, H ^a,b   England, A ^a   Akhtar, I ^a   Aslam, A ^c   De Lange, R ^d   Momoniat, H ^a   Nicoulaz, S ^e   Ribeiro, A ^f   Mazhir, S ^a   Hogg, P ^a,g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KUFA   (Iraq)

^c OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

^d HANZE UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^e Clinical Research Unit   (Switzerland)

^f INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

^g UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD   (Iraq)

Author keywords

Assessment scale; Chest radiography; Image quality perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENT; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING PHANTOM; MEDICAL STUDENT; PERCEPTION; PILOT STUDY; PSYCHOMETRY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 84908503104     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: 15322831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2014.03.007     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Hart D., Wall B.F., Hillier M.C., Shrimpton P.C. Frequency and collective dose for medical and dental X-ray examinations in the UK 2008, Report HPA-CRCE-012, Health Protection Agency, Available from:. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1287148001641.
2. Van Ginneken B., Ter Haar Romeny B.M., Viergever M.A. Computer-aided diagnosis in chest radiography: a survey. Med Imag 2001, 20(12):1228-1241.
3. Aichinger Horst Radiation exposure and image quality perception in X-ray diagnostic radiology: physical principles and clinical applications 2011, 1935, Springer, Berlin, London. 2nd ed.
4. Martin C.J., Sutton D.G., Sharp F.P. Balancing patient dose and image quality. Appl Radiat Isot 1999, 50(1):1-19.
5. Thompson J., Hogg P., Thompson S., Manning D., Szczepura K. ROCView: prototype software for data collection in jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Br J Radiol 2012 Sep, 85(1017):1320-1326.
6. Manning-Stanley A.S., Ward A.J., England A. Options for radiation dose optimisation in pelvic digital radiography: a phantom study. Radiography 2012, 18:256-263.
7. Heath R., England A., Ward A., Charnock P., Ward M., Evans P., et al. Digital pelvic radiography: increasing distance to reduce dose. Radiol Technol 2011, 83(1):20-28.
8. Mekis N., McEntree M.F., Stegnar P. PA positioning significantly reduces testicular dose during sacroiliac joint radiography. Radiography 2010, 16:333-338.
9. Neitzel U., Maack I., Gunther-Kohfahl S. Image quality perception of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector. Med Phys 1994, 21(509). http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.597389.
10. Tingberg A.M. Quantifying the quality of medical X-ray images: an evaluation based on normal anatomy for lumbar spine and chest radiography 2000, Lunds Universitet (Sweden), [Ph.D. thesis].
11. Commission of European Communities European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images 1996, EUR 16260EN, The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
12. Mansson L.G. Methods for the evaluation of image quality. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000, 90(1-2):89-99.
13. Sharp F.P. Quantifying image quality. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 1990, 11:21-26.
14. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory 1986, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
15. Niedermann K., Forster A., Ciurea A., Hammond A., Uebelhart D., de Bie R. Development and psychometric properties of a joint protection self-efficacy scale. Scand J Occup Ther 2011, 18(2):143-152.
16. Carver E., Carver B. Medical imaging: techniques, reflection & evaluation 2006, Elsevier, Churchill Livingstone.
17. Allen E., Hogg P., Ma W.K., Szczepura K. Fact or fiction: an analysis of the 10 kVp 'rule' in computed radiography. Radiography 2013, 19(3):223-227.
18. Ma W.K., Hogg P., Tootell A., Manning D., Thomas N., Kane T., et al. Anthropomorphic chest phantom imaging - the potential for dose creep in computed radiography. Radiography 2013, 19(3):207-211.
19. Bandura A. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents 2006, 307-337. Information Age, New York. F. Pajares, T. Urdan (Eds.).
20. Lev E.L. Bandura's theory of self-efficacy: applications to oncology. Res Theory Nurs Pract 1997, 11(1):21-37.
21. Kyoto Kagaku Ltd. Multipurpose chest phantom N1 "LUNGMAN". [last accessed 18.05.13]. http://www.%20kyotokagaku.com/products/detail03/ph-1.html.
22. Whitley A.S., Sloane C., Hoadley G., Moore A.D., Alsop C.W. Clark's positioning in radiography 2005, Hodder Arnold, London. 12th ed.
23. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) Recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic X-ray imaging systems 2005, Report no. 91, IPEM, York.
24. Lin Y., Luo H., Dobbins J.T., Page McAdams H., Wang X., Sehnert W.J., et al. An image-based technique to assess the perceptual quality of clinical chest radiographs. Med Phys 2012, 39(11):7019-7031.
25. Tavakol M., Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011, 2:53-55.
26. Cronbach L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrka 1951, 16(3):297-334.
27. Waclawski E.R. Health measurement scales - a practical guide to their development and use. Occup Med 2010, 60(2):156.
28. Kitching J., Cassidy S., Eachus P., Hogg P. Creating and validating self-efficacy scales for students. Radiol Technol 2011, 83(1):10-19.
29. Champion V., Skinner C.S., Menon U. Development of a self-efficacy scale for mammography. Res Nurs Health 2005, 28(4):329-336.
30. Fliess-Douer O., van der Woude L.H., Vanlandewijck Y.C. Development of a new scale for perceived self-efficacy in manual wheeled mobility: a pilot study. JRehabil Med - Off J UEMS Eur Board Phys Rehabil Med 2011, 43(7):602-608.