skip to main content
research-article

Documentation quality and time costs: A randomized controlled trial of structured entry versus dictation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) performs over 800,000 disability exams and distributes over $37 billion in disability benefits per year. VA developed and deployed a computer-based disability exam documentation system in order to improve exam report quality and timeliness. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing joint disability examinations supported by computerized templates to the examinations documented via dictation, to determine if the system met the intended goals or had unintended consequences. Consenting veterans were randomized to undergo exams documented using computerized templates or via dictation. We compared exam report quality, documentation time costs, encounter length, total time to fulfill an exam request with a finalized exam report, and veteran satisfaction. Computer-based templates resulted in disability exam reports that had higher quality scores (p. 0.042) and were returned to the requesting office faster than exam reports created via dictation (p. 0.02).

Documentation time and veteran satisfaction were similar for both the documentation techniques. Encounter length was significantly longer for the template group. Computer-based templates impacted the VA disability evaluation system by improving report quality scores and production time and lengthening encounter times. Oversight bodies have called for mandated use of computer-based templates nationwide. We believe mandates regarding use of health information technology should be guided by data regarding its positive and negative impacts.

References

  1. Ahlers, P., Sullivan, R. J., Hammond, W. E., Walter, E. L., and Tolley, H. D. 1976. The cost of auditing outpatient records. South Med. J. 69, 1328--1330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Apkon, M. and Singhaviranon, P. 2001. Impact of an electronic information system on physician workflow and data collection in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 27, 122--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Aronsky, D. and Haug, P. J. 2000. Assessing the quality of clinical data in a computer-based record for calculating the pneumonia severity index. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. 7, 55--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ash, J. S., Berg, M., and Coiera, E. 2003. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care informations system related errors. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. Preprint.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Barnett, G. O., Winickoff, R., Dorsey, J. L., Morgan, M. M., and Lurie, R. S. 1978. Quality assurance through automated monitoring and concurrent feedback using a computer-based medical information system. Med. Care 16, 962--970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Barnett, G. O., Winickoff, R. N., Morgan, M. M., and Zielstorff, R. D. 1983. A computer-based monitoring system for follow-up of elevated blood pressure. Med Care 21, 400--409.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Bell, D. S. and Greenes, R. A. 1994. Evaluation of UltraSTAR: performance of a collaborative structured data entry system. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Applications Medical Care. 216--222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Blake, R. and Mangiameli, P. 2009. The effects and interactions of data quality and problem complexity on data mining. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Quality (ICIQ), 160--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, S. H., Hardenbrook, S., Herrick, L., St. Onge, J., Bailey, K., and Elkin, P. L. 2001. Usability evaluation of the progress note construction set. In Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium. 76--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, S. H., Lincoln, M. J., Groen, P. J., and Kolodner, R. M. 2003. VistA--U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national-scale HIS. Int. J. Med. Inf. 69, 135--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Brown, S. H., Speroff, T., Fielstein, E. M., Bauer, B. A., Wahner-Roedler, D. L., Greevy, R., and Elkin, P. L. 2006. eQuality: Electronic quality assessment from narrative clinical reports. Mayo Clin. Proc. 81, 1472--1481.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Cimino, J. J., Johnson, S. B., Aguirre, A., Roderer, N., and Clayton, P. D. 1992. The MEDLINE button. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Applications Medical Care. 81--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cimino, J. J., Patel, V. L., and Kushniruk, A. W. 2001. Studying the human-computer-terminology interface. J Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. 8, 163--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Dawdy, M. R., Munter, D. W., and Gilmore, R. A. 1997. Correlation of patient entry rates and physician documentation errors in dictated and handwritten emergency treatment records. Amer. J. Emerg. Med. 15, 115--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Dollery, C. T., Beilin, L. J., Bulpitt, C. J., Coles, E. C., Johnson, B. F., Munro-Faure, A. D., and Turner, S. C. 1977. Initial care of hypertensive patients. Influence of different types of clinical records. British Heart J. 39, 181--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Duggan, A. K., Starfield, B., and Deangelis, C. 1990. Structured encounter form: The impact on provider performance and recording of well-child care. Pediatrics 85, 104--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Essin, D. J., Dishakjian, R., Deciutiis, V. L., Essin, C. D., and Steen, S. N. 1998. Development and assessment of a computer-based preanesthetic patient evaluation system for obstetrical anesthesia. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 14, 95--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Evans, R. S., Pestotnik, S. L., Classen, D. C., Clemmer, T. P., Weaver, L. K., Orme, J. F., Jr., Lloyd, J. F., and Burke, J. P. 1998. A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. New. Eng. J. Med. 338, 232--238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Fatzinger, P., Kammer, A., and Garrett, M. 1992. Development and use of preprinted forms and adhesive labels in medical record charting. J. Amer. Diet Assoc. 92, 982--985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Fielstein, E. M., Brown, S. H., McBrine, C. S., Clark, T. K., Hardenbrook, S. P., and Speroff, T. 2006. The effect of standardized computer-guided templates on quality of VA disability exams. In Proceedings of the American Medical Information Association Fall Symposium. 249--253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Geissbuhler, A. and Miller, R. A. 1996. A new approach to the implementation of direct care-provider order entry. In Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. 689--693.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Gouveia-Oliveira, A., Raposo, V. D., Salgado, N. C., Almeida, I., Nobre-Leitao, C., and De Melo, F. G. 1991. Longitudinal comparative study on the influence of computers on reporting of clinical data. Endoscopy 23, 334--337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Gray, J. E., Safran, C., Davis, R. B., Pompilio-Weitzner, G., Stewart, J. E., Zaccagnini, L., and Pursley, D. 2000. Baby CareLink: Using the internet and telemedicine to improve care for high-risk infants. Pediatrics 106, 1318--1324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Hammond, K. W. and Munnecke, T. H. 1984. A computerized psychiatric treatment planning system. Hosp. Comm. Psych. 35, 160--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Hershberg, P. I., Goldfinger, S. E., Lemon, F. R., and Fessel, W. J. 1972. Medical record as index of quality of care. New. Eng. J. Med,. 286, 725--726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Hiddema-Van De Wal, A., Smith, R. J., Van Der Werf, G. T., and Meyboom-De Jong, B. 2001. Towards improvement of the accuracy and completeness of medication registration with the use of an electronic medical record (EMR). Fam. Pract. 18, 288--291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Humphreys, T., Shofer, F. S., Jacobson, S., Coutifaris, C., and Stemhagen, A. 1992. Preformatted charts improve documentation in the emergency department. Ann. Emerg. Med. 21, 534--540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Jeans, W. D., Danton, R. M., and Kilburn, A. R. 1980. An assessment of a computerized reporting system (SIREP). British J. Radiol. 53, 421--427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Johnson, K. B. and Cowan, J. 2002. Clictate: A computer-based documentation tool for guideline-based care. J. Med. Syst. 26, 47--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Johnson, K. B., Ravich, W. J., and Cowan, J. A., Jr. 2004. Brainstorming about next-generation computer-based documentation: an AMIA clinical working group survey. Int. J. Med. Inf. 73, 665--674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Johnson, K. B., Serwint, J. R., Fagan, L. M., Thompson, R. E., and Wilson, M. H. 2005. Computer-based documentation: effect on parent and physician satisfaction during a pediatric health maintenance encounter. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 159, 250--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Kahn, C. E., Jr. and Huynh, P. N. 1996. Knowledge representation for platform-independent structured reporting. In Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. 478--482.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Kiefer, V. F., Schwartz, R. J., and Jacobs, L. M. 1993. The effect of quality assurance on flight nurse documentation. Air Med. J. 1, 11--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Kuhn, K., Gaus, W., Wechsler, J. G., Janowitz, P., Tudyka, J., Kratzer, W., Swobodnik, W., and Ditschuneit, H. 1992. Structured reporting of medical findings: Evaluation of a system in gastroenterology. Methods Inf. Med. 31, 268--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Kuhn, K., Swobodnik, W., Johannes, R. S., Zemmler, T., Stange, E. F., Ditschuneit, H., and Classen, M. 1991. The quality of gastroenterological reports based on free text dictation: an evaluation in endoscopy and ultrasonography. Endoscopy 23, 262--264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Ledley, R. S. 1966. Computer aids to medical diagnosis. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 196, 933--943.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Lum, F., Schein, O., Schachat, A. P., Abbott, R. L., Hoskins, H. D., Jr., and Steinberg, E. P. 2000. Initial two years of experience with the AAO National Eyecare Outcomes Network (NEON) cataract surgery database. Ophthalmology 107, 691--697.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Madlon-Kay, D. J. 1998. Use of a structured encounter form to improve well-child care documentation. Arch. Fam. Med. 7, 480--483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Marill, K. A., Gauharou, E. S., Nelson, B. K., Peterson, M. A., Curtis, R. L., and Gonzalez, M. R. 1999. Prospective, randomized trial of template-assisted versus undirected written recording of physician records in the emergency department. Ann. Emerg. Med. 33, 500--509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Marshall, M., Campbell, C., Hacker, J., and Rowland, M. 2002. Quality Indicators for General Practice: A Practical Guide for Health Professionalsa and Managers. Oxford University Press, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. McDonald, C. J. 1976. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. New. Eng. J. Med. 295, 1351--1355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. McDonald, C. J. 1997. The barriers to electronic medical record systems and how to overcome them. J. Amer. Med. Inf. Assoc 4, 213--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. McDonald, C. J., Overhage, J. M., Dexter, P., Takesue, B. Y., and Dwyer, D. M. 1997. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources. Ann. Intern. Med. 127, 675--682.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. McDonald, C. J., Overhage, J. M., Tierney, W. M., Dexter, P. R., Martin, D. K., Suico, J. G., Zafar, A., Schadow, G., Blevins, L., Glazener, T., Meeks-Johnson, J., Lemmon, L., Warvel, J., Porterfield, B., Warvel, J., Cassidy, P., Lindbergh, D., Belsito, A., Tucker, M., Williams, B., and Wodniak, C. 1999. The Regenstrief Medical Record System: A quarter century experience. Int. J. Med. Inf. 54, 225--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. McDonald, C. J., Tierney, W. M., Overhage, J. M., Martin, D. K., and Wilson, G. A. 1992. The Regenstrief Medical Record System: 20 years of experience in hospitals, clinics, and neighborhood health centers. MD Comput. 9, 206--217.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. McDonald, C. J., Wilson, G. A., and McCabe, G. P., Jr. 1980. Physician response to computer reminders. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 244, 1579--1581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. McGeary, M., Ford, M. A., McCutchen, M. R., and Barnes, D. K. 2007. A 21st century system for evaluating veterans for the disability benefits. IOM Board on Military and Veterans Health: Committee on Medical Evaluation of Veterans for Disability Compensation, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. McKnight, L. K., Elkin, P. L., Ogren, P. V., and Chute, C. G. 1999. Barriers to the clinical implementation of compositionality. In Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium. 320--324.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Mehmood, K., Cherfi, S., and Comyn-Wattiau, I. 2009. Data quality through conceptual model quality -- reconciling researchers and practitioners through a customizable quality model. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Quality (ICIQ'09). 61--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Modai, I. and Rabinowitz, J. 1993. Why and how to establish a computerized system for psychiatric case records. Hosp. Commun. Psych. 44, 1091--1095.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Nightingale, F. 1863. Notes on Hospitals. Longman, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. O'Connor, A. E., Finnel, L., and Reid, J. 2001. Do preformatted charts improve doctors' documentation in a rural hospital emergency department? A prospective trial. NZ Med. J. 114, 443--444.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Orman, L., Storey, V. C., and Wang, R. Y. 1996. Systems approaches to improving data quality. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Quality. 117--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ornstein, S. M., Jenkins, R. G., Lee, F. W., Sack, J. L., Lakier, E. I., Roskin, S. D., Wulfman, J. S., and Wriston, G. A. 1997. The computer-based patient record as a CQI tool in a family medicine center. Joint Comm. J. Qual. Improv. 23, 347--361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Orr, K. 1998. Data quality and systems theory. Comm. ACM 41, 66--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Pierik, F. H., Van Ginneken, A. M., Dohle, G. R., Vreeburg, J. T., and Weber, R. F. 2000. The advantages of standardized evaluation of male infertility. Int. J. Androl. 23, 340--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Poon, A. D., Fagan, L. M., and Shortliffe, E. H. 1996. The PEN-Ivory project: Exploring user-interface design for the selection of items from large controlled vocabularies of medicine. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. 3, 168--183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Powsner, S. M., Riely, C. A., Barwick, K. W., Morrow, J. S., and Miller, P. L. 1989. Automated bibliographic retrieval based on current topics in hepatology: hepatopix. Comput. Biomed. Res. 22, 552--564. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Rabinowitz, J., Modai, I., Valevski, A., Zemishlany, Z., and Mark, M. 1993. Benefits of a structured format for paper and computerized psychiatric case records. Hosp. Commun. Psych. 44, 1095--1097.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. VA Office of the Inspector General. Review of state variances in VA disability compensation payments.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenbloom, S. T., Crow, A. N., Blackford, J. U., and Johnson, K. B. 2006. Cognitive factors influencing perceptions of clinical documentation tools. J. Biomed. Inf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Rosenbloom, S. T., Kiepek, W., Belletti, J., Adams, P., Shuxteau, K., Johnson, K. B., Elkin, P. L., and Shultz, E. K. 2004. Generating complex clinical documents using structured entry and reporting. MEDINFO'04, 683--687.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenbloom, S. T., Miller, R. A., Johnson, K. B., Elkin, P. L., and Brown, S. H. 2006. Interface terminologies: facilitating direct entry of clinical data into electronic health record systems. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13, 277--288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Safran, D. G., Kosinski, M., Tarlov, A. R., Rogers, W. H., Taira, D. H., Lieberman, N., and Ware, J. E. 1998. The Primary Care Assessment Survey: Tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med. Care 36, 728--739.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Sahlstedt, S., Adolfsson, H., Ehnfors, M., and Kallstrom, B. 1997. Nursing process documentation--Effects on workload and quality when using a computer program and a key word model for nursing documentation. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 46, 330--336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Schriger, D. L., Baraff, L. J., Rogers, W. H., and Cretin, S. 1997. Implementation of clinical guidelines using a computer charting system. Effect on the initial care of health care workers exposed to body fluids. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 278, 1585--1590.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Schwartz, R. J., Boisoneau, D.. and Jacobs, L. M. 1995. The quantity of cause-of-injury information documented on the medical record: an appeal for injury prevention. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2, 98--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Scott, J. T. 2007. Honoring the call to duty: Veterans' disability benefits in the 21st century. Disability Commission, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Seltzer, S. E., Kelly, P., Adams, D. F., Chiango, B. F., Viera, M. A., Fener, E., Hooton, S., Bannon-Rohrbach, S., Healy, C. D., Doubilet, P. M., and Holman, B. L. 1997. Expediting the turnaround of radiology reports in a teaching hospital setting. AJR Amer. J. Roentgenol 168, 889--893.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Solomon, D. H., Schaffer, J. L., Katz, J. N., Horsky, J., Burdick, E., Nadler, E., and Bates, D. W. 2000. Can history and physical examination be used as markers of quality? An analysis of the initial visit note in musculoskeletal care. Med. Care 38, 383--391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Stead, W. W., Hammond, W. E., and Estes, E. H. 1977. Evaluation of an audio mode of the automated medical history. Methods Inf. Med. 16, 20--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Stead, W. W., Heyman, A., Thompson, H. K., and Hammond, W. E. 1972. Computer-assisted interview of patients with functional headache. Arch. Intern. Med. 129, 950--955.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Stetson, P. D., Morrison, F. P., Bakken, S., and Johnson, S. B. 2008. Preliminary development of the physician documentation quality instrument. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. 15, 534--541.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Teo, S., Hanson, R., Van Asperen, P., Giles, H., Fasher, B., Davis, A. M., and Kristidis, P. 1995. Improving asthma documentation in a paediatric emergency department. J. Paediatr. Child Health 31, 130--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Tierney, W. M., Miller, M. E., Overhage, J. M., and McDonald, C. J. 1993. Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 269, 379--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Veterans' Disability Benefits. 2005. VA could enhance its progress in complying with court decision on disability criteria. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Walters, B. C. and McNeill, I. 1990. Improving the record of patient assessment in the trauma room. J. Trauma 30, 398--409.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Weeks, W. B., Mills, P. D., Waldron, J., Brown, S. H., Speroff, T., and Coulson, L. R. 2003. A model for improving the quality and timeliness of compensation and pension examinations in VA facilities. J. Healthcare Manage. 48, 252--261; discussion, 262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Weinger, M. B., Herndon, O. W., and Gaba, D. M. 1997. The effect of electronic record keeping and transesophageal echocardiography on task distribution, workload, and vigilance during cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology 87, 144--155; 129A--130A.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Winickoff, R. N., Coltin, K. L., Fleishman, S. J., and Barnett, G. O. 1986. Semiautomated reminder system for improving syphilis management. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1, 78--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Wirtschafter, D. D., Scalise, M., Henke, C., and Gams, R. A. 1981. Do information systems improve the quality of clinical research? Results of a randomized trial in a cooperative multi-institutional cancer group. Comput. Biomed. Res. 14, 78--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Wrenn, K., Rodewald, L., Lumb, E., and Slovis, C. 1993. The use of structured, complaint-specific patient encounter forms in the emergency department. Ann. Emerg. Med. 22, 805--812.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Zenni, E. A. and Robinson, T. N. 1996. Effects of structured encounter forms on pediatric house staff knowledge, parent satisfaction, and quality of care. A randomized, controlled trial. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 150, 975--980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Documentation quality and time costs: A randomized controlled trial of structured entry versus dictation

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in

              Full Access

              • Published in

                cover image Journal of Data and Information Quality
                Journal of Data and Information Quality  Volume 3, Issue 1
                April 2012
                54 pages
                ISSN:1936-1955
                EISSN:1936-1963
                DOI:10.1145/2166788
                Issue’s Table of Contents

                Copyright © 2012 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 7 May 2012
                • Accepted: 1 January 2012
                • Revised: 1 November 2010
                • Received: 1 January 2010
                Published in jdiq Volume 3, Issue 1

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article
                • Research
                • Refereed

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader