The process of peer review can be a valuable addition to the evaluation system of an occupational therapy department. Input from one's peers can provide a fresh outlook on issues that appear insurmountable to the individual therapist. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the process of peer review and to familiarize the reader with the significant variables that must be considered when the establishment of such a process is contemplated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrodyCeleste M.The Peer Group. General Learning Press, Morristoun, New Jersey, 1976, p. 6.
2.
LewinArie Y., and ZwanyAbram. Peer Nominations: A Model, Literature Critique and a Paradigm for Research. Personnel Psychology, 1976, 29, 423–447.
3.
DowneyR. G.MidlandF. F. and YatesL. G.Evaluation of a Peer Rating System for Predicting Subsequent Promotion of Senior Military Officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976 (April) 61: 2, 206–209.
4.
RoadmanH. E.An Industrial Use of Peer Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 211–214.
5.
HolzbachRobert L.Rater Bias in Performance Ratings: Superior, Self, and Peer Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, (October) 65: 6, 579–588.
6.
WilliamsS. B. and LeavittH. J.Group Opinion as a Predictor of Military Leadership. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1947, 11, 283–291.
7.
GordonL. V.Estimating the Reliability of Peer Ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 305–313.
8.
FiskeD.W. and CoxJ. A.The Consistency of Ratings by Peers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1960, 44, 11–17.
9.
HollanderE. P. and Webb. Leadership, Followership, and Friendship: An Analysis of Peer Nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 50, 163–167.
10.
LandersMaxine S.Peer Review and Record Review Systems. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1975 (April), 29: 4, 226–228.
11.
BerniR. and ReadyH.Problem Orientated Medical Record Implementation, C. V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974, p. 3.
12.
RichardsonF.Peer Review of Medical Care. Medical Care, 1972, 10, p. 38.
13.
PetersE. N.Practical Versus Impractical Peer Review. Medical Care, 1972, 10, p. 520.
14.
GoldH.JacksonM.SachsB. and Van MeterM.Peer Review—A Working Experiment. Nursing Outlook, 1973 (October) 21: 10, 634–636.
15.
LandersMaxine S.Peer Review and Record Review Systems. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1975 (April) 29: 4, p. 226.
16.
HoodMargaret R.Muriel Driver Memorial Lecturer. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1976 (September) 43: 3, p. 108.
17.
WilsonMargaret A.A Competency Assurance Programme. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1977 (October) 31: 9, 573–579.
18.
IdzikowskiC. and LandersM.Revised Peer Review System. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1977 (October) 31: 9, 582–583.
19.
NewberryAlan J. H.Supervision of Instruction: An Administrative Priority. Comment on Education, 1978 (December) 9: 2, 6–9.
