Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24415917›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2014

Evaluation of best practices in the design of online evidence-based practice instructional modules.

Margaret J Foster, Suzanne Shurtz, Catherine Pepper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. 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

3 authors.

Margaret J Fostermargaretfoster@tamu.edu , Systematic Reviews and Research Coordinator, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4462; sshurtz@library.tamu.edu , Instructional Services Librarian, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4462; cpepper@tamu.edu , Field Services Coordinator, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 3950 North A. W. Grimes, Room N405G, Round Rock, TX 78665.
Suzanne Shurtzmargaretfoster@tamu.edu , Systematic Reviews and Research Coordinator, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4462; sshurtz@library.tamu.edu , Instructional Services Librarian, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4462; cpepper@tamu.edu , Field Services Coordinator, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 3950 North A. W. Grimes, Room N405G, Round Rock, TX 78665.
Catherine Peppermargaretfoster@tamu.edu , Systematic Reviews and Research Coordinator, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4462; sshurtz@library.tamu.edu , Instructional Services Librarian, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4462; cpepper@tamu.edu , Field Services Coordinator, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 3950 North A. W. Grimes, Room N405G, Round Rock, TX 78665.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe research determined to what extent best practices are being followed by freely available online modules aimed at teaching critical thinking and evidence-based practices (EBPs) in health sciences fields.

methodsIn phase I, an evaluation rubric was created after reviewing the literature. Individual rubric questions were assigned point values and grouped into sections, and the sections weighted. Phase II involved searching Internet platforms to locate online EBP modules, which were screened to determine if they met predetermined criteria for inclusion. Phase III comprised a first evaluation, in which two authors assessed each module, followed by a second evaluation of the top-scoring modules by five representatives from different health sciences units.

resultsThe rubric's 28 questions were categorized into 4 sections: content, design, interactivity, and usability. After retrieving 170 online modules and closely screening 91, 42 were in the first evaluation and 8 modules were in the second evaluation. Modules in the first evaluation earned, on average, 59% of available points; modules in the second earned an average of 68%. Both evaluations had a moderate level of inter-rater reliability.

conclusionsThe rubric was effective and reliable in evaluating the modules. Most modules followed best practices for content and usability but not for design and interactivity. IMPLICATIONS: By systematically collecting and evaluating instructional modules, the authors found many potentially useful elements for module creation. Also, by reviewing the limitations of the evaluated modules, the authors were able to anticipate and plan ways to overcome potential issues in module design.

Indexed as

Computer-Assisted InstructionEducational TechnologyEvidence-Based PracticeHumansInternetLearningUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID24415917
PMCPMC3878933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.