ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2023
The Design and Validation of a Self-Assessment Questionnaire of Critical Appraisal of Medical Literature Skills in Medical Students.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2023. 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.
- Research preparedness and competence among Nigerian medical and dental students applying for a research fellowship.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Critical appraisal of medical literature is a challenging step of the evidence-based medicine practice. Many assessment questionnaires have been published in the literature, but they have mainly focused on all the evidence-based medicine practice process. The authors aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing the critical appraisal skills of medical students from the same Faculty. Methods: The questionnaire was developed by item generation through a review of the literature and an expert committee. The questionnaire was validated in terms of content validity and construct validity. Fitness of data for analysis was checked through Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's sphericity. Construct validity was carried out using a principal axis exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with 'varimax' rotation to study the internal structure of the questionnaire and to extract the test major factors. The questionnaire was administrated to a cohort of under and postgraduate medical students (n=84) to evaluate the test reliability and select the best items. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient to evaluate the internal consistency. The correlations between the self-confidence and satisfaction dimension score, the critical thinking dimension score, the learning style dimension score, the Fresno-adapted test scores and the total score were assessed using the Spearman's correlation test. Results: The questionnaire consisted of 31 items. A factorial analysis grouped the items into 3 dimensions that consisted of the self-confidence and satisfaction dimension, the critical thinking dimension and the learning style dimension. Cronbach's alpha accounted for 0.95, CI95% [0.9-1] for the entire questionnaire. The factor analysis explained 79.51% of the variance. The external validity assessment based on a Spearman's correlation study highlighted a weak correlation between the total scores and the critical thinking dimension and the self-perception and satisfaction dimension. Conclusion: In spite of the limitations of this study, mainly the small number of the students recruited, the questionnaire seems to measure with adequate reliability the competences of under and postgraduate medical students.
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.