Journal Logo

Erratum

Erratum: Use of the Behavior Assessment Tool in 18 Pilot Residency Programs

Author Information
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.ER.20.00103
  • Open
  • Related Article

The Journal publishes corrections when they are of significance to patient care, scientific data or record-keeping, or authorship, whether that error was made by an author, editor, or staff. Errata also appear in the online version and are attached to files downloaded from jbjs.org.

In the article entitled “Use of the Behavior Assessment Tool in 18 Pilot Residency Programs” (JBJS Open Access. 2020;5[4]:e20.00103), by Armstrong et al., there were errors on pages 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Specifically, in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion sections, the specificity of the ABOS Behavior Assessment Tool that had read “57%” and “57% (95% CI 52% to 62%)” should have read “51%” and “51% (95% CI 45% to 56%).” In the Abstract, “1,012 evaluators” should have read “1,016 evaluators” and “431 residents” should have read “428 residents.” In the Results section entitled “Evaluation Results per Resident,” the sentence that had read “The domain with the greatest number of residents exhibiting low scores was ethical behavior.” should have read “The domain with the greatest number of residents exhibiting low scores was interaction.” In the Discussion section on pages 6 and 7, the number of residents with low scores in at least one domain that had read “176” should have read “196.” In Table III, the title that had read “Behavior Evaluations Completed by Resident Year in Training Source” should have read “Behavior Evaluations Completed by Resident Year in Training.” In Table VII, the column head that had read “No. of Residents with >2 Low Scores within the Same Domain” should have read “No. of Residents with ≥2 Low Scores within the Same Domain.” Also in Table VII, in columns 2 and 3, the values that had read “26 (6%), 23 (5%), 19 (4%), 18 (4%), and 20 (5%)” should have read “32 (8%), 61 (14%), 63 (15%), 57 (13%), and 59 (14%).” In Table VIII, the column head that had read “No. of Baseline Professionalism PD Assessment Low Score Residents (N = 32) Also with Low Scores on the Behavior Tool by at least 2 Evaluators” should have read “No. of Baseline Professionalism PD Assessment Low Score Residents (N = 32) Also with Low Scores on the Behavior Tool.” In Table IX, the title that had read “Number of Low Domain Scores by at least 2 Evaluators for Low Baseline Professionalism PD Assessment Score Residents (n = 32)*” should have read “Number of Low Domain Scores for Low Baseline Professionalism PD Assessment Score Residents (n = 32)*”. Also, the values in the table that had read “6, 3, 2, 2, 6, 13” should have read “7, 2, 1, 3, 5, 14.” In Table X, the title that had read “Specificity and Sensitivity of the ABOS Behavior Tool Compared with PD Baseline Assessment for All Participating Residents (n = 440)*” should have read “Specificity and Sensitivity of the ABOS Behavior Tool Compared with PD Baseline Assessment for All Participating Residents (n = 428)*.” Also in Table X, in the right column entitled “PD Baseline Assessment High Score (3 or 4),” the values that had read “176” and “232” should have read “196” and “200,” respectively. Finally, a supplementary data file should have been included with the article that contains results that portray resident performance with at least two low scores in one domain by at least two different evaluators.

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.