1. The Presence of Outcome Bias in Emergency Physician Retrospective Judgments of the Quality of Care 
Malkeet Gupta, MD, MS, David L. Schriger, MD, MPH, Jeffrey A. Tabas, MD 
Annals of Emergency Medicine 
Volume 57, Issue 4, Pages e9 (April 2011)
DOI: /j.annemergmed
Copyright © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1
This stacked bar graph shows the qualitative ratings of quality of the process of care for each scenario, stratified by whether the patient's outcome was good (g), not stated (n), or bad (b). For each scenario, the percentage of better-quality scores decreases as one moves from good to bad outcomes.
Annals of Emergency Medicine  , e9DOI: ( /j.annemergmed )
Copyright © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2
This box plot shows the distribution of ratings of quality of the process of care for each scenario, stratified by whether the patient's outcome was good (g), not stated (n), or bad (b). Each box represents the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile; the whiskers are the upper and lower adjacent values, and the dots are the outlying values. For each scenario, outcome bias exists as quality ratings increase from bad to neutral to good outcomes.
Annals of Emergency Medicine  , e9DOI: ( /j.annemergmed )
Copyright © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3
This scatterplot shows the difference in individual ratings for the below-average quality scenarios (good outcome–bad outcome, x axis) graphed against this difference for the good-quality scenarios (good outcome–bad outcome, y axis). Data from individuals prone to outcome bias should cluster in the upper right because they would rank the scenario with the good outcome more highly for each pair. If correlation were high, individuals' data would fall along the grey diagonal line. The black lines are locally weighted estimating equation (see text) regressions of x on y and y on x and show that knowledge of the difference for one pair tells us very little about the value of the difference for the other pair. Please see the video that accompanies this Figure online, available at
Annals of Emergency Medicine  , e9DOI: ( /j.annemergmed )
Copyright © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians Terms and Conditions

5. Figure E1
Randomization strategy for assignment of clinical scenario and outcome.
Annals of Emergency Medicine  , e9DOI: ( /j.annemergmed )
Copyright © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians Terms and Conditions

6. Figure E2
Example of on-screen slider for a scenario in which the participant picked “average” as qualitative descriptor. The slider (red bar) can be moved within the blue zone (26 to 74) to specify the rater's exact quality value. The numeric display shows its current value (34). The “blue zone” changes, depending on the qualitative descriptor selected.
Annals of Emergency Medicine  , e9DOI: ( /j.annemergmed )
Copyright © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians Terms and Conditions