Premium
Evaluation of email alerts in practice: Part 2 – validation of the information assessment method
Author(s) -
Pluye Pierre,
Grad Roland M.,
JohnsonLafleur Janique,
Bambrick Tara,
Burnand Bernard,
Mercer Jay,
Marlow Bernard,
Campbell Craig
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01313.x
Subject(s) - operationalization , relevance (law) , concordance , checklist , cognition , applied psychology , reading (process) , psychology , computer science , medical education , medicine , philosophy , epistemology , neuroscience , political science , law , cognitive psychology
Rationale and objective The information assessment method (IAM) permits health professionals to systematically document the relevance, cognitive impact, use and health outcomes of information objects delivered by or retrieved from electronic knowledge resources. The companion review paper (Part 1) critically examined the literature, and proposed a ‘Push‐Pull‐Acquisition‐Cognition‐Application’ evaluation framework, which is operationalized by IAM. The purpose of the present paper (Part 2) is to examine the content validity of the IAM cognitive checklist when linked to email alerts. Methods A qualitative component of a mixed methods study was conducted with 46 doctors reading and rating research‐based synopses sent on email. The unit of analysis was a doctor's explanation of a rating of one item regarding one synopsis. Interviews with participants provided 253 units that were analysed to assess concordance with item definitions. Results and conclusion The content relevance of seven items was supported. For three items, revisions were needed. Interviews suggested one new item. This study has yielded a 2008 version of IAM.