Mary wants to evaluate the consistency of abstracting among her team; what study should she perform?

A reliability study is designed to assess the consistency and accuracy of data abstracted by different individuals or teams, making it the most appropriate choice for Mary’s goal of evaluating abstracting consistency among her team. In conducting a reliability study, Mary would typically have multiple abstractors review the same set of records to determine whether their findings are consistent. This process helps identify areas where there might be discrepancies in abstracting, thereby allowing for improvements in training or standardization of protocols.

In contrast, a recoding audit involves reassessing the coding of specific data to ensure accuracy, but it does not directly evaluate the consistency among abstractors. A reabstracting study would also assess the outcomes of abstracting, but it focuses primarily on the results of a previous abstraction process rather than the consistency of procedures among the team. A casefinding audit is concerned with identifying and evaluating the completeness of cases that have been abstracted or coded, which does not specifically target the consistency of the abstracting process itself. Therefore, the most relevant approach for assessing the abstracting consistency within Mary's team is the reliability study.