Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study.


Journal

BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 04 09 2020
accepted: 11 12 2020
entrez: 8 1 2021
pubmed: 9 1 2021
medline: 15 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Knowledge assessment in evidence-based medicine (EBM) is usually performed by the measurement of memorised facts, understanding of EBM concepts and application of learned knowledge in familiar situations, all of which are considered lower-level educational objectives. The aim of this study was to assess EBM knowledge both on higher and lower cognitive levels across EBM topics. In order to assess knowledge on different EBM topics across learning levels, we created a knowledge test (Six Progressive Levels in Testing - SPLIT instrument), which consists of 36 multiple choice items and measures knowledge in EBM at six cognitive levels (Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating and Creating) and addresses six EBM topics (Evidence-based practice, Internal validity, Clinical importance, Study design, Sources of evidence, Diagnostic studies). Three independent assessors defined the minimum passing score (MPS) for the overall test, based on the first-year course content and educational objectives. The instrument was assessed in a sample of first- (n = 119) and third-year medical students (n = 70) and EBM experts (n = 14). The MPS was 16 correct answers out of total 36 questions, and was achieved by 21 out of 119 first-year students, 14 out of 70 third-year students and 9 out of 14 EBM experts (χ EBM knowledge of students and experts differ according to the specificities of their education/expertise, but neither group had excellent knowledge in all areas. It may be difficult to develop a knowledge test that includes different EBM topics at different cognitive levels to follow the development of specific and general aspects of EBM knowledge.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Knowledge assessment in evidence-based medicine (EBM) is usually performed by the measurement of memorised facts, understanding of EBM concepts and application of learned knowledge in familiar situations, all of which are considered lower-level educational objectives. The aim of this study was to assess EBM knowledge both on higher and lower cognitive levels across EBM topics.
METHODS METHODS
In order to assess knowledge on different EBM topics across learning levels, we created a knowledge test (Six Progressive Levels in Testing - SPLIT instrument), which consists of 36 multiple choice items and measures knowledge in EBM at six cognitive levels (Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating and Creating) and addresses six EBM topics (Evidence-based practice, Internal validity, Clinical importance, Study design, Sources of evidence, Diagnostic studies). Three independent assessors defined the minimum passing score (MPS) for the overall test, based on the first-year course content and educational objectives. The instrument was assessed in a sample of first- (n = 119) and third-year medical students (n = 70) and EBM experts (n = 14).
RESULTS RESULTS
The MPS was 16 correct answers out of total 36 questions, and was achieved by 21 out of 119 first-year students, 14 out of 70 third-year students and 9 out of 14 EBM experts (χ
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
EBM knowledge of students and experts differ according to the specificities of their education/expertise, but neither group had excellent knowledge in all areas. It may be difficult to develop a knowledge test that includes different EBM topics at different cognitive levels to follow the development of specific and general aspects of EBM knowledge.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33413344
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02449-y
pii: 10.1186/s12909-020-02449-y
pmc: PMC7791849
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

25

Subventions

Organisme : Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost
ID : IP-2014-09-7672
Organisme : Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost
ID : IP-2019-04-4882

Références

J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Feb;24(1):262-263
pubmed: 28370993
Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7
pubmed: 2400509
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Aug 1;18(1):177
pubmed: 30068343
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Apr 14;14:79
pubmed: 24731433
BMC Med Educ. 2005 Jan 05;5(1):1
pubmed: 15634359
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
pubmed: 8555924
J R Soc Med. 2010 Jun;103(6):231-8
pubmed: 20472639
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Jun 09;14:114
pubmed: 24909434
Fam Med. 2015 Feb;47(2):101-17
pubmed: 25646982
BMJ. 2002 Dec 7;325(7376):1338-41
pubmed: 12468485
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Dec 4;18(1):290
pubmed: 30514288
BMJ. 2003 Feb 8;326(7384):319-21
pubmed: 12574047
Med Educ. 2019 Jan;53(1):86-94
pubmed: 30216508
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 28;14:249
pubmed: 25431359
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2016 Sep 22;13:34
pubmed: 27649902
Acta Med Acad. 2014;43(1):50-62
pubmed: 24893639
Med Teach. 2015 Jan;37(1):21-30
pubmed: 25401408

Auteurs

Ivan Buljan (I)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia. ibuljan@mefst.hr.

Matko Marušić (M)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.

Ružica Tokalić (R)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.

Marin Viđak (M)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.

Tina Poklepović Peričić (TP)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.

Darko Hren (D)

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Ana Marušić (A)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH