ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2020
Construct validity and reliability of the Concussion Knowledge Assessment Tool (CKAT).
Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Concussion knowledge among North American chiropractors.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the concussion knowledge assessment tool (CKAT) as a measure of knowledge of concussion and its management among chiropractic subgroups and to compare these properties for two scoring strategies for the CKAT.
methodsThree chiropractic subgroups (first year students, interns and sports chiropractors) completed the CKAT via SurveyMonkey with as second administration two to six weeks later for a subset of respondents. Scatter plots and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used for test-retest reliability. A priori hypotheses regarding the relationship of CKAT scores across known subgroups, and with concussion knowledge self-rankings were established prior to data collection. Distributions of CKAT scores were compared across the subgroups using boxplots and ANOVA for known groups validity, and correlation of CKAT scores with concussion knowledge self-ranking was examined.
resultsTest-retest ICC for the revised scoring was 0.68 (95%CI 0.51-0.80). First year students had a mean revised CKAT (out of 49) of 36.9 (SD= 4.7), interns 39.9 (SD=3.0) and sports chiropractors 41.8 (SD=3.2) which are significantly different (F
conclusionsThe CKAT distinguished between chiropractic subgroups expected to have different levels of knowledge, supporting construct validity, however, it did not achieve adequate test-retest reliability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33487642PMC7815174What 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.