Purpose: To point out the need for standardized terminology for digital image analysis and to collect data by surveying radiologic technology professionals for a more comprehensive, national-breadth study.
Methods: A mixed-method pilot study was conducted, in which a survey was emailed to 4 Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology-accredited radiography programs in July and August 2019. Eight educators and 28 radiologic technologists responded, and acceptance was evaluated on 3 of the proposed terms: signal, signal value, and signal variance (later changed to signal differences). Quantitative data results were analyzed in Microsoft Forms and percentage of acceptance rates calculated. Respondents who did not accept the proposed terms were asked to provide reasoning in open-ended responses, which were analyzed using manual coding and categorization.
Results: The term signal received an 88% acceptance rate among educators and a 96% rate among radiographers. Signal value was accepted by 88% of educators and 79% of radiographers. The lowest acceptance rate was for the term signal variance (educators, 63%; radiographers, 79%). Open-ended responses were categorized into themes revealing respondent concerns about the use of signal value, which might result in forgetting about radiation dose (4 respondents) and how signal value relates to image receptor exposure and exposure indicator value (2 respondents). Concerns about signal variance involved contrast being easier to understand because it is visible (2 respondents), confusion with the usage of the proposed term (2 respondents), and preference for contrast because of its current use (2 respondents).
Discussion: Recent history indicates confusion regarding which terms effectively describe the new image quality factors that dictate proper use of digital radiography. The proposed terms evaluated in this pilot study received a mean acceptance rate of 83.5%, suggesting understanding of terms related to digital image analysis from participating educators and radiographers.
Conclusion: The findings of this pilot study indicate a need to standardize terminology related to digital image quality factors. However, these preliminary results should be interpreted with caution because of the low response rate. Readers can participate in helping to establish a universal language for digital image analysis by scanning the quick response (QR) code or clicking the link at the end of the article and completing the survey.
Keywords: contrast resolution; digital imaging; image resolution; image signal; prime image quality factors; radiography; signal; signal differences; signal value; spatial resolution.
© 2020 American Society of Radiologic Technologists.