Open AccessSelf-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of evidence-based practice terminology among healthcare students: A cross-sectional study
Author(s) -
Anne Kristin Snibsøer,
Donna Ciliska,
Jennifer Yost,
Birgitte Graverholt,
Monica Wammen Nortvedt,
Trond Riise,
Birgitte Espehaug
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0200313
Subject(s) - cross sectional study , terminology , health care , medicine , medline , psychology , family medicine , biology , pathology , philosophy , linguistics , economics , economic growth , biochemistry
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 (EBP 2 ) 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 (K w ). 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<0.001). Interrater agreement between self-reported and assessed open-ended items varied (K w = 0.04–0.69). The overall agreement for the EBP 2 Terminology domain was poor (ICC = 0.29). The self-reported EBP 2 Terminology domain discriminated between levels of EBP exposure. Conclusion An overall low agreement was found between healthcare students’ self-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of EBP terminology. As a measurement tool, the EBP 2 Terminology scale may be useful to differentiate between levels of EBP exposure. When using the scale as a discriminatory tool, for the purpose of academic promotion or clinical certification, users should be aware that self-ratings would be higher than objectively assessed knowledge.