Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Development and Validation of a Test for Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine.
Patell, Rushad; Raska, Paola; Lee, Natalie; Luciano, Gina; DiNardo, Deborah J; Baduashvili, Amiran; Anderson, Mel L; Merritt, Frank; Rothberg, Michael B.
Afiliação
  • Patell R; Department of Hematology-Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Raska P; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Lee N; National Clinician Scholar, Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, PA, USA.
  • Luciano G; Division of General Medicine and Geriatrics, Baystate Health, Springfield, MA, USA.
  • DiNardo DJ; Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
  • Baduashvili A; Section of Hospital Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
  • Anderson ML; Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Merritt F; Medicine Service, Rocky Mountain VA Regional Medical Center, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Rothberg MB; Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(5): 1530-1536, 2020 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31848856
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Medical educators need valid, reliable, and efficient tools to assess evidence-based medicine (EBM) knowledge and skills. Available EBM assessment tools either do not assess skills or are laborious to grade.

OBJECTIVE:

To validate a multiple-choice-based EBM test-the Resident EBM Skills Evaluation Tool (RESET).

DESIGN:

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS:

A total of 304 medicine residents from five training programs and 33 EBM experts comprised the validation cohort. MAIN

MEASURES:

Internal reliability, item difficulty, and item discrimination were assessed. Construct validity was assessed by comparing mean total scores of trainees to experts. Experts were also asked to rate importance of each test item to assess content validity. KEY

RESULTS:

Experts had higher total scores than trainees (35.6 vs. 29.4, P < 0.001) and also scored significantly higher than residents on 11/18 items. Cronbach's alpha was 0.6 (acceptable), and no items had a low item-total correlation. Item difficulty ranged from 7 to 86%. All items were deemed "important" by > 50% of experts.

CONCLUSIONS:

The proposed EBM assessment tool is a reliable and valid instrument to assess competence in EBM. It is easy to administer and grade and could be used to guide and assess interventions in EBM education.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Competência Clínica / Avaliação Educacional Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Competência Clínica / Avaliação Educacional Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article