ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2023
Information literacy of matriculating chiropractic students assessed via research readiness survey.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A needs assessment survey for improving library support for chiropractic faculty research.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2026Article
- Evaluating students' research literacy knowledge, confidence, and attitudes at the beginning and end of a doctor of chiropractic program.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe developed a Research Readiness Survey (RRS) to identify students' information literacy needs prior to instruction by a team of faculty members and librarians in our doctor of chiropractic program clinical research literacy courses. In addition to describing students' responses to our RRS, we explored associations between (1) students' overall performance on the RRS and their prior earned degrees and (2) their self-reported ability and performance on questions pertaining to evaluating information quality (standard 3 of the Association of College and Research Libraries [ACRL] Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education).
methodsThe RRS is composed of 50 questions, of which 22 pertain to information literacy knowledge assessment per ACRL standards. We calculated means and standard deviations for summary scores on 4 ACRL standards and for a total RRS score. We used analysis of variance to assess whether standard 3 scores differed by students' self-reported ability to judge health information quality and whether there was an association between total RRS scores and students' previously earned degrees.
resultsIn 2017-2018, 245 students (70% of matriculates) completed the RRS. Students performed best on standard 3 (average score 67%) and worst on standard 2, the ability to access information (average score = 59%). Students who reported an average ability to judge information quality had higher standard 3 scores than students who reported poor ability (p = .003). Students with bachelor's degrees had higher total RRS scores than students with associate's degrees (p = .004).
conclusionMatriculating students had the most difficulty with accessing information, supporting the need to include librarians on the teaching team.
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.