Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23206964›Full record

ArticleJournal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics

Development and psychometric evaluation of an evidence-based practice questionnaire for a chiropractic curriculum.

Michael C Leo, Dave Peterson, Mitchell Haas, Ron LeFebvre, Shireesh Bhalerao

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Michael C LeoKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR 97227, USA. Michael.C.Leo@kpchr.org
Dave Peterson
Mitchell Haas
Ron LeFebvre
Shireesh Bhalerao

Funding

Evidence-Based Practice II: Faculty & Curriculum DevelopmentR25AT002880 · NCCIH · WESTERN STATES CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE · PI HAAS, MITCHELL · 2005 to 2012
$1.6M
NCCIH NIH HHS R25 AT002880
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purposes of this study were to describe the questionnaire development process for evaluating elements of an evidence-based practice (EBP) curriculum in a chiropractic program and to report on initial reliability and validity testing for the EBP knowledge examination component of the questionnaire.

methodsThe EBP knowledge test was evaluated with students enrolled in a doctor of chiropractic program in the University of Western States. The initial version was tested with a sample of 374 and a revised version with a sample of 196 students. Item performance and reliability were assessed using item difficulty, item discrimination, and internal consistency. An expert panel assessed face and content validity.

resultsThe first version of the knowledge examination demonstrated a low internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20 = 0.55), and a few items had poor item difficulty and discrimination. This resulted in an expansion in the number of items from 20 to 40, as well as a revision of the poorly performing items from the initial version. The Kuder-Richardson 20 of the second version was 0.68; 32 items had item difficulties of between 0.20 and 0.80, and 26 items had item discrimination values of 0.20 or greater.

conclusionsA questionnaire for evaluating a revised EBP-integrated curriculum was developed and evaluated. Psychometric testing of the EBP knowledge component provided some initial evidence for acceptable reliability and validity.

Indexed as

CurriculumSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultChiropracticClinical CompetenceEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23206964
PMCPMC3572191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.