ArticleBMJ open2017
Measuring ability to assess claims about treatment effects: a latent trait analysis of items from the 'Claim Evaluation Tools' database using Rasch modelling.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Critical Health Literacy Podcast to Counter Health Misinformation at Scale: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Teaching Australian high school students to think critically about health claims: a cluster randomized trial.Health education research · 2023Trial
- Feasibility of contextualizing the Informed Health Choices learning resources in Italy: A pilot study in a primary school in Florence.F1000Research · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Interventions to promote critical health literacy: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Exploring school nurses' potential to strengthen young people's resilience to misinformation by promoting critical health literacy in Norway.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Article
- Measurement of critical health literacy in primary school pupils: a Polish validation of the Claim Evaluation Tools.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Critical thinking about health and treatments in the United States: a cross-sectional assessment of parents and undergraduate college students.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Evaluating health claim assessment skills of parents with preschool children: A cross-sectional study using Informed Health Choices Claim Evaluation Tool.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- What should the standard be for passing and mastery on the Critical Thinking about Health Test? A consensus study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Evaluating student's ability to assess treatment claims: validating a German version of the Claim Evaluation Tools.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Using claims in the media to teach essential concepts for evidence-based healthcare.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- The Norwegian public's ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy.F1000Research · 2020Article
- The James Lind Initiative: books, websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims, 2003 to 2018.Research involvement and engagement · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Claim Evaluation Tools database contains multiple-choice items for measuring people's ability to apply the key concepts they need to know to be able to assess treatment claims. We assessed items from the database using Rasch analysis to develop an outcome measure to be used in two randomised trials in Uganda. Rasch analysis is a form of psychometric testing relying on Item Response Theory. It is a dynamic way of developing outcome measures that are valid and reliable.
objectivesTo assess the validity, reliability and responsiveness of 88 items addressing 22 key concepts using Rasch analysis.
participantsWe administrated four sets of multiple-choice items in English to 1114 people in Uganda and Norway, of which 685 were children and 429 were adults (including 171 health professionals). We scored all items dichotomously. We explored summary and individual fit statistics using the RUMM2030 analysis package. We used SPSS to perform distractor analysis.
resultsMost items conformed well to the Rasch model, but some items needed revision. Overall, the four item sets had satisfactory reliability. We did not identify significant response dependence between any pairs of items and, overall, the magnitude of multidimensionality in the data was acceptable. The items had a high level of difficulty.
conclusionMost of the items conformed well to the Rasch model's expectations. Following revision of some items, we concluded that most of the items were suitable for use in an outcome measure for evaluating the ability of children or adults to assess treatment claims.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.