Author
Listed:
- Anne Kristin Snibsøer
- Donna Ciliska
- Jennifer Yost
- Birgitte Graverholt
- Monica Wammen Nortvedt
- Trond Riise
- Birgitte Espehaug
Abstract
Background: Self-reported scales and objective measurement tools are used to evaluate self-perceived and objective knowledge of evidence-based practice (EBP). Agreement between self-perceived and objective knowledge of EBP terminology has not been widely investigated among healthcare students. Aim: The aim of this study was to examine agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of EBP terminology among healthcare students. A secondary objective was to explore this agreement between students with different levels of EBP exposure. Methods: Students in various healthcare disciplines and at different academic levels from Norway (n = 336) and Canada (n = 154) were invited to answer the Terminology domain items of the Evidence-Based Practice Profile (EBP2) questionnaire (self-reported), an additional item of ‘evidence based practice’ and six random open-ended questions (objective). The open-ended questions were scored on a five-level scoring rubric. Interrater agreement between self-reported and objective items was investigated with weighted kappa (Kw). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to estimate overall agreement. Results: Mean self-reported scores varied across items from 1.99 (‘forest plot’) to 4.33 (‘evidence-based practice’). Mean assessed open-ended answers varied from 1.23 (‘publication bias’) to 2.74 (‘evidence-based practice’). For all items, mean self-reported knowledge was higher than that assessed from open-ended answers (p
Suggested Citation
Anne Kristin Snibsøer & Donna Ciliska & Jennifer Yost & Birgitte Graverholt & Monica Wammen Nortvedt & Trond Riise & Birgitte Espehaug, 2018.
"Self-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of evidence-based practice terminology among healthcare students: A cross-sectional study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0200313
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200313
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200313. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.