Few EBP intervention studies used high-quality instruments, and no high-quality instrument covers all five EBP steps¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Of 24 previously developed instruments used, only 6 (25%) were rated high quality (≥3 types of established validity evidence). → Albarqouni Loai 2018 q3 i? High-quality instruments were used in 14 of 52 skills studies, 14 of 39 knowledge studies, and 8 of 35 attitude studies; none measuring self-efficacy or behaviour were high quality. → Albarqouni Loai 2018

Evidence¶

Albarqouni Loai 2018¶

Albarqouni Loai, Hoffmann Tammy, Glasziou Paul. (2018). Evidence-based practice educational intervention studies: a systematic review of what is taught and how it is measured. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1284-1

q3 · i? · review · r3

Psychometric quality assessment of the 24 instruments used in the 85 included studies, based on Shaneyfelt et al. criteria (inter-rater reliability, objective measures, ≥3 validity types). The review reports "6 (25%) instruments were rated as high quality" and none evaluated all five EBP steps.

"Of the 24 previously developed instruments that were used across all included studies, 6 (25%) instruments were rated as high quality"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Most evaluated EBP educational interventions teach only some of the five EBP steps, with critical appraisal (Step 3) taught most frequently
• Validity evidence for data-driven assessment tools relies predominantly on construct validity, with 11 of 35 studies using unvalidated tools — related
• Instruments show great heterogeneity in measurement quality, with validity or reliability information lacking in many cases — a broader claim this one bears on