Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Peter Bradley; Jeph Herrin (2004)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Journal: Medical Education Online
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Special aspects of education, R5-920, Medicine (General), LC8-6691
The aim of this study was to develop and validate three instruments which measure knowledge about searching for and critically appraising scientific articles (evidence-based practice-EBP). Twenty-three questions were collected from previous studies and modified by an expert panel. These questions were then administered to 55 delegates before and after two international conferences in EBP; the responses were assessed for discriminative ability and internal consistency. Five questions were discarded and three instruments of six questions each were developed. Finally, the instruments were re-validated in a randomized controlled trial comparing two educational interventions at the University of Oslo, Norway by 166 of 175 eligible medical students. In the re-validation, the instruments showed satisfactory level of discriminate validity (p<0.05), but borderline levels of internal consistency (Cronbachs a 0.52-0.61). More research is needed to develop a suitable instrument which includes questions on searching for evidence.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972
    • 2. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics, 1979, III
    • 3. Morgan M, Beech R. Variations in lengths of stay and rates of day case surgery: implications for the efficiency of surgical management. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990; 44:90-105
    • 4. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC, A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992;268:240-248
    • 6. Hyde C, Parkes J, Deeks J, Milne R, Systematic review of effectiveness of teaching critical appraisal. ICRF/NHS Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford: 2000
    • 7. Taylor R, Reeves B, Ewings P, Binns S, Khan PE, Keast J, Mears R A systematic review of the effectiveness of critical appraisal skills training for clinicians. Med Educ 2000; 34:120-125
    • 8. Taylor R, Reeves B, Mears R, Keast J, Binns S, Khan PE, Development of a questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence practice teaching, Med Educ, 2001; 35(6): 544-547
    • 9. Firsche l, Greenhalgh T, Falck-Ytter Y, Neumayer H-H, Kunz R, Do short courses in evidence based medicine improve knowledge and skills? Validation of Berlin questionnaire
    • evidence based medicine, BMJ 2002;
    • 10. Bradley P, Oterholt C, Herrin J, Nordheim L, Bjørndal A, A comparison of directed and selfdirected learning programmes in evidencebased medicine for medical students: a randomised controlled trial, submitted BMJ, April 2004
    • 11. Taylor R et al, A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of critical appraisal skill workshops for health service decision-makers in the South and West Region. 1999:Bristol, unpublished.
    • 12. Enoch K, An evaluation of Computer Aided Learning within Evidence-Based Health Care educational resources, 2000: Oxford, unpublished
    • archives journals, 2002.
    • 14. Cronbach LJ, Coefficient α and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica 1951;16: 197-234
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article