Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27625722›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2016

Derivation of Two Critical Appraisal Scores for Trainees to Evaluate Online Educational Resources: A METRIQ Study.

Teresa M Chan, Brent Thoma, Keeth Krishnan, Michelle Lin, Christopher R Carpenter, Matt Astin, Kulamakan Kulasegaram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Teresa M ChanMcMaster University, Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Brent ThomaUniversity of Saskatchewan, Department of Emergency Medicine, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Keeth KrishnanUniversity of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine, Undergraduate Medical Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle LinUniversity of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, San Francisco, California.
Christopher R CarpenterWashington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Matt AstinMercer University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Macon, Georgia.
Kulamakan KulasegaramUniversity of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; University Health Network, Department of Emergency Medicine, Wilson Centre for Health Professions Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOnline education resources (OERs), like blogs and podcasts, increasingly augment or replace traditional medical education resources such as textbooks and lectures. Trainees' ability to evaluate these resources is poor, and few quality assessment aids have been developed to assist them. This study aimed to derive a quality evaluation instrument for this purpose.

methodsWe used a three-phase methodology. In Phase 1, a previously derived list of 151 OER quality indicators was reduced to 13 items using data from published consensus-building studies (of medical educators, expert podcasters, and expert bloggers) and subsequent evaluation by our team. In Phase 2, these 13 items were converted to seven-point Likert scales used by trainee raters (n=40) to evaluate 39 OERs. The reliability and usability of these 13 rating items was determined using responses from trainee raters, and top items were used to create two OER quality evaluation instruments. In Phase 3, these instruments were compared to an external certification process (the ALiEM AIR certification) and the gestalt evaluation of the same 39 blog posts by 20 faculty educators.

resultsTwo quality-evaluation instruments were derived with fair inter-rater reliability: the METRIQ-8 Score (Inter class correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.30, p<0.001) and the METRIQ-5 Score (ICC=0.22, p<0.001). Both scores, when calculated using the derivation data, correlated with educator gestalt (Pearson's r=0.35, p=0.03 and r=0.41, p<0.01, respectively) and were related to increased odds of receiving an ALiEM AIR certification (odds ratio=1.28, p=0.03; OR=1.5, p=0.004, respectively).

conclusionTwo novel scoring instruments with adequate psychometric properties were derived to assist trainees in evaluating OER quality and correlated favourably with gestalt ratings of online educational resources by faculty educators. Further testing is needed to ensure these instruments are accurate when applied by trainees.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceReproducibility of ResultsCurriculumEducation, MedicalHumansInternetInternship and ResidencySocial MediaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27625722
PMCPMC5017842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.