Bradley Peter, Herrin Jeph
a Norwegian Medicines Agency , Oslo , Norway.
b Flying Buttress Associates , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
Med Educ Online. 2004 Dec;9(1):4354. doi: 10.3402/meo.v9i.4354.
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). Twentythree 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 revalidated 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 (Cronbach's α 0.52-0.61). More research is needed to develop a suitable instrument which includes questions on searching for evidence.
本研究的目的是开发并验证三种工具，用于衡量关于搜索和批判性评价科学文章（循证实践-EBP）的知识。从先前的研究中收集了23个问题，并由一个专家小组进行修改。然后，在两次循证实践国际会议前后，将这些问题发给55名代表；对回答进行鉴别能力和内部一致性评估。舍弃了5个问题，开发了三种各含6个问题的工具。最后，在挪威奥斯陆大学对175名符合条件的医学生中的166名进行了一项随机对照试验，比较两种教育干预措施，对这些工具进行再验证。在再验证中，这些工具显示出令人满意的鉴别效度水平（p<0.05），但内部一致性处于临界水平（Cronbach's α 0.52 - 0.61）。需要开展更多研究来开发一种合适的工具，其中应包括有关搜索证据的问题。
