Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40155642›Full record

ArticleBDJ open2025

Reliability and validity of Vietnamese version of the Knowledge, Attitudes, Access, and Confidence Evaluation questionnaire.

Phi Ngoc Quang Tran, Vu Hoa Anh Dien, Truc Thi Hoang Nguyen, Kien Trung Nguyen, Nhi Thi Phuong Pham, Anh Lam Tu Nguyen, My Khanh Nguyen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BDJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Phi Ngoc Quang TranFaculty of Dentistry, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Vu Hoa Anh DienFaculty of Dentistry, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. vu.dha@vlu.edu.vn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7229-3736
Truc Thi Hoang NguyenFaculty of Dentistry, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Kien Trung NguyenFaculty of Dentistry, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Nhi Thi Phuong PhamFaculty of Dentistry, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Anh Lam Tu NguyenFaculty of Dentistry, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
My Khanh NguyenFaculty of Dentistry, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo effectively evaluate evidence-based dentistry (EBD) training outcomes, precise and validated assessment tools are essential. This study aimed to construct a Vietnamese version of the KACE questionnaire (Knowledge, Attitudes, Access, and Confidence Evaluation) and to assess its reliability and validity.

methodsAfter translating the original KACE questionnaire, we conducted tests for face validity, content validity, and discriminant validity test. Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency and reliability of the Vietnamese KACE questionnaire.

resultsThirty lecturers and 280 dental students completed the KACE questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha for the Attitude scale ranged from 0.90 to 0.97, for the Accessing Evidence scale from 0.90 to 0.96, and for the Confidence scale ranged from 0.83 to 0.93 across lecturers and dental student groups. The Knowledge scale had Cronbach's alpha from 0.55 to 0.79. The overall ICC of 0.861 indicated that the measurement is stable and consistent.

conclusionThe Vietnamese adaptation of the KACE questionnaire is a reliable and valuable tool for assessing EBD competencies among Vietnamese dental students and practitioners.

Identifiers

PMID40155642
PMCPMC11953237

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.