Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Assessment tools addressing 10 key concepts or more

From: Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review

Study id (author and year) Participants Instrument with concept Concepts included in measurement Number of concepts
Ramos 2003, Tilson 2010 (modified version, relative to physical therapists), Dinkevich 2006 (modified version- excluded diagnosis and prevention), Hatmi 2010, Nicholson 2007, Mascola 2008 (adaption including only 7 questions), McCluskey 2005 (did not include advanced statistical questions), Shuval 2010 (adaption), Ilic 2012 (this study only evaluated the two first steps (question formulation and search) [44] (see Additional file 3) Health professionals Competency in EBM: the Fresno tool developed as part of the study, using clinical scenarios and open-ended questions related to the five EBM steps. The Fresno test require the candidate to formulate a focused question, identify the most appropriate research design for answering the question, show knowledge of electronic database searching, identify issues important for determining the relevance and validity of a given research article, and discuss the magnitude and importance of research findings. These questions are scored by using a standardised grading system. A series of calculations and fill in the blank questions. 2.1, 2,2, 2.4-2.7, 3.1-3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 6.1-6.3 15
Godwin 2003 [45] Health professionals Knowledge about EBM: questionnaire with six open ended questions about criteria for quality assessing randomised trials, systematic reviews and diagnostic tests. For each question the respondent would get 0 to 2 points, and six questions evaluating understanding of results scored as 0 or 1 point per question. Instrument probably designed as part of study. 2.1, 2,2, 2.4-2.7, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 6.1-6.3 13
Rosenbaum 2010 [39] Mixed Understanding the findings of trials and systematic reviews: 2 questions about self-assessed understanding of randomised trials rated on a scale, and 7 questions about self-assessed understanding of systematic reviews- including understanding the results, identifying important outcomes, helpfulness and accessibility of the intervention. Correct understanding: four questions about the reviews content- including risk, confidence in the evidence and identification of the most important outcomes. Evaluation tools developed for the study, not further described. Probably used likert scales. 2.1-2.7, 3.1, 4.1- 4.3 11
Vandvik 2012 [38] Mixed Understanding of summary of findings (results of systematic reviews): instrument created for study including 6 multiple- choice questions about the certainty of the evidence and interpretation of results, scored as correct/incorrect. 2.1-2.7, 3.1, 4.1- 4.3 11