ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025
Development and validation of a questionnaire for assessment of retention of knowledge after Basic Cardiopulmonary Life Support (BCLS) training in healthcare workers.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background and Aims: The Basic Cardiopulmonary Life Support (BCLS) guidelines have been developed to describe stepwise management of cardiac arrest victims. During the training of healthcare workers in BCLS, their retention of knowledge was assessed using a questionnaire. We describe the process of developing and validating this questionnaire to ensure that participants' knowledge is reliably measured. Methods: Based on a comprehensive literature review, 16 questions were prepared by six subject experts with mutual consensus. Face validity was done by 15 participants, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The questionnaire was sent to 10 experts for content validity, who graded the questions on four attributes: relevance, clarity, simplicity, and ambiguity. The responses were collected, and item-level and scale-level average content validity indices (I-CVI and S-CVI/Ave) were calculated, along with modified kappa statistics. I-CVI > 0.79 and S-CVI/Ave > 0.9 were considered acceptable. Results: Face validity resulted in minor language changes in three questions, and all questions were retained. In terms of content validity, the S-CVI/Ave scores were 0.99, 0.97, and 0.99. 0.97 for relevance, clarity, simplicity, and ambiguity, respectively. One question had I-CVI < 0.79 and was revised. Minor revisions and reframing of questions were done according to the experts' suggestions. All the questions demonstrated excellent kappa agreement, and the final questionnaire consisted of 16 questions. Conclusion: The questionnaire designed to assess the knowledge level of participants and retention of this knowledge after BCLS training in healthcare workers met the face and content validity criteria. This validated questionnaire can also be used to assess participants after BCLS training.
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.