Table 5

Criterion validity. Significant correlations (Spearmans' rho) between task-oriented and overall questions about frequency of EMR use, work performance and user satisfaction. In the test-retest study, data from its first part was used for this analysis (61 physicians from three hospitals). *Tasks related to information retrieval.

Criterion validation for task-oriented questions

In the...

...the task-oriented questions about...

...correlates to...

...in number of questions:

Median correlation coefficient (range)

Frequency of EMR use: individual tasks vs. general information retrieval

1

test-retest study

frequency of EMR use (B1-1 to B1-24)

question B2-2: ``All considered, how often do you use the EMR as an information source in the daily clinical work? (never-always)''

12 of 24 (50%) and 9 of 12* (75%)

0.516 (0.308 – 0.675)

Task performance vs. overall work performance

2

local study

task performance (F1-F19)

question G1a ``The performance of our department's work has become... (significantly more difficult - significantly easier)''

17 of 19 (89%)

0.513 (0.286 – 0.684)

3

test-retest study

task performance (C1-C24)

question E3a: ``The performance of our department's work has become... (significantly more difficult - significantly easier)''

20 of 24 (83%)

0.427 (0.329 – 0,662)

4

test-retest study

task performance (C1-C24)

question E3b: ``The performance of my own tasks has become... (significantly more difficult - significantly easier)''

21 of 24 (88%)

0.435 (0.291 – 0.689)

Task performance vs. user satisfaction

5

local study

task performance (F1-F19)

the End user Computer Satisfaction measure

13 of 19 (68%)

0.483 (0.273 – 0.592)

6

test-retest study

task performance (C1-C24)

the End user Computer Satisfaction measure

15 of 24 (63%)

0.458 (0.328–0.682)

7

local study

task performance (F1-F19)

The Short Global User Satisfaction measure

16 of 19 (84%)

0.512 (0.332 – 0.686)

8

test-retest study

task performance (C1-C24)

The Short Global User Satisfaction measure

20 of 24 (83%)

0.445 (0.348 – 0.711)

Lærum and Faxvaag BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2004 4:1   doi:10.1186/1472-6947-4-1