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 |