Cargando…

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

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 stu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buljan, Ivan, Marušić, Matko, Tokalić, Ružica, Viđak, Marin, Peričić, Tina Poklepović, Hren, Darko, Marušić, Ana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7791849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33413344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02449-y
_version_ 1783633680791502848
author Buljan, Ivan
Marušić, Matko
Tokalić, Ružica
Viđak, Marin
Peričić, Tina Poklepović
Hren, Darko
Marušić, Ana
author_facet Buljan, Ivan
Marušić, Matko
Tokalić, Ružica
Viđak, Marin
Peričić, Tina Poklepović
Hren, Darko
Marušić, Ana
author_sort Buljan, Ivan
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: 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(2) = 13.3; P < 0.001, with significantly higher proportion of experts passing compared to students). Although experts had the highest scores overall, none of the groups outperformed others on individual cognitive levels, but the experts outperformed students in EBM topics of Study design and Sources of evidence (P = 0.002 and 0.004, respectively, Kruskal-Wallis test). First- and third-year students performed better on specific course topics taught in that study year (Diagnostic studies and Clinical relevance, respectively). CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7791849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77918492021-01-11 Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study Buljan, Ivan Marušić, Matko Tokalić, Ružica Viđak, Marin Peričić, Tina Poklepović Hren, Darko Marušić, Ana BMC Med Educ Research Article 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: 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: 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(2) = 13.3; P < 0.001, with significantly higher proportion of experts passing compared to students). Although experts had the highest scores overall, none of the groups outperformed others on individual cognitive levels, but the experts outperformed students in EBM topics of Study design and Sources of evidence (P = 0.002 and 0.004, respectively, Kruskal-Wallis test). First- and third-year students performed better on specific course topics taught in that study year (Diagnostic studies and Clinical relevance, respectively). CONCLUSION: 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. BioMed Central 2021-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7791849/ /pubmed/33413344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02449-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Buljan, Ivan
Marušić, Matko
Tokalić, Ružica
Viđak, Marin
Peričić, Tina Poklepović
Hren, Darko
Marušić, Ana
Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study
title Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study
title_full Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study
title_fullStr Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study
title_short Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study
title_sort cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7791849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33413344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02449-y
work_keys_str_mv AT buljanivan cognitivelevelsintestingknowledgeinevidencebasedmedicineacrosssectionalstudy
AT marusicmatko cognitivelevelsintestingknowledgeinevidencebasedmedicineacrosssectionalstudy
AT tokalicruzica cognitivelevelsintestingknowledgeinevidencebasedmedicineacrosssectionalstudy
AT viđakmarin cognitivelevelsintestingknowledgeinevidencebasedmedicineacrosssectionalstudy
AT pericictinapoklepovic cognitivelevelsintestingknowledgeinevidencebasedmedicineacrosssectionalstudy
AT hrendarko cognitivelevelsintestingknowledgeinevidencebasedmedicineacrosssectionalstudy
AT marusicana cognitivelevelsintestingknowledgeinevidencebasedmedicineacrosssectionalstudy