Purpose:
To compare
the utility of a rating and visual analogue scale for
the assessment of legibility in prescriptions
Methods:
A sample of
fifty randomly selected prescriptions from a tertiary
hospital in Benin City, Nigeria was assessed by five
independent assessors – three doctors and two
pharmacists using a rating scale and a 100 mm visual
analogue scale. Rating scores were allocated as: 0 -
completely illegible; 1 - barely legible; 2 - moderately
legible; 3 - clearly legible, and 4 - print. Visual
analogue scores were measured in millimetres.
Results:
Rating and
visual analogue scores were skewed. The median rating
score by doctors and pharmacists were 2.0 and 3.0,
respectively. Median visual analogue scores were 59.5,
67.0, 55.0, 51.5 and 46.0 mm, respectively.
Inter-quartile ranges (rating scores) were 2.0 – 3.0 for
both doctors and pharmacists except for one pharmacist
whose inter-quartile range was 1.0 – 2.3; inter-quartile
ranges (visual analogue scores) were 49.3 – 63.0, 59.8 –
71.0, 31.0 – 65.5, 40.8 – 62.0, 43.0 – 55.5 mm, for the
five independent assessors. The pharmacists’ scores
using either scale were significantly positively
correlated (rs
= 0.900; 2-tailed p = 0.05); one doctor’s scores were
negatively correlated (rs
= -0.308).
Conclusion:
The findings support the utility of both instruments
in the assessment of handwriting but suggest that there
may be important differences between doctors and
pharmacists using either method.
Keywords:
Handwriting; Prescriptions; Legibility; Rating Scale;
Visual Analogue Scale; Nigeria.
