Juliet Aizer, Erika L Abramson, Jessica R Berman, Stephen A Paget, Marianna B Frey, Victoria Cooley, Ying Li, Katherine L Hoffman, Julie A Schell, Michael D Tiongson, Myriam A Lin, Lisa A Mandl
{"title":"衡量风湿病学受训者批判性评价自我效能的工具。","authors":"Juliet Aizer, Erika L Abramson, Jessica R Berman, Stephen A Paget, Marianna B Frey, Victoria Cooley, Ying Li, Katherine L Hoffman, Julie A Schell, Michael D Tiongson, Myriam A Lin, Lisa A Mandl","doi":"10.1002/acr2.11505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Self-efficacy, the internal belief that one can perform a specific task successfully, influences behavior. To promote critical appraisal of medical literature, rheumatology training programs should foster both competence and self-efficacy for critical appraisal. This study aimed to investigate whether select items from the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), an instrument measuring clinical research self-efficacy, could be used to measure critical appraisal self-efficacy (CASE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred twenty-five trainees from 33 rheumatology programs were sent a questionnaire that included two sections of the CRAI. Six CRAI items relevant to CASE were identified a priori; responses generated a CASE score (total score range 0-10; higher = greater confidence in one's ability to perform a specific task successfully). CASE scores' internal structure and relation to domain-concordant variables were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Questionnaires were completed by 112 of 125 (89.6%) trainees. CASE scores ranged from 0.5 to 8.2. The six CRAI items contributing to the CASE score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and unidimensionality. Criterion validity was supported by the findings that participants with higher CASE scores rated their epidemiology and biostatistics understanding higher than that of peers (P < 0.0001) and were more likely to report referring to studies to answer clinical questions (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.41-4.33; P = 0.002). The correlation of CASE scores with percentage of questions answered correctly was only moderate, supporting discriminant validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The six-item CASE instrument demonstrated content validity, internal consistency, discriminative capability, and criterion validity, including correlation with self-reported behavior, supporting its potential as a useful measure of critical appraisal self-efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7084,"journal":{"name":"ACR Open Rheumatology","volume":"5 1","pages":"4-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/a9/ACR2-5-4.PMC9837389.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Instrument for Measuring Critical Appraisal Self-Efficacy in Rheumatology Trainees.\",\"authors\":\"Juliet Aizer, Erika L Abramson, Jessica R Berman, Stephen A Paget, Marianna B Frey, Victoria Cooley, Ying Li, Katherine L Hoffman, Julie A Schell, Michael D Tiongson, Myriam A Lin, Lisa A Mandl\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acr2.11505\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Self-efficacy, the internal belief that one can perform a specific task successfully, influences behavior. To promote critical appraisal of medical literature, rheumatology training programs should foster both competence and self-efficacy for critical appraisal. This study aimed to investigate whether select items from the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), an instrument measuring clinical research self-efficacy, could be used to measure critical appraisal self-efficacy (CASE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred twenty-five trainees from 33 rheumatology programs were sent a questionnaire that included two sections of the CRAI. Six CRAI items relevant to CASE were identified a priori; responses generated a CASE score (total score range 0-10; higher = greater confidence in one's ability to perform a specific task successfully). CASE scores' internal structure and relation to domain-concordant variables were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Questionnaires were completed by 112 of 125 (89.6%) trainees. CASE scores ranged from 0.5 to 8.2. The six CRAI items contributing to the CASE score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and unidimensionality. Criterion validity was supported by the findings that participants with higher CASE scores rated their epidemiology and biostatistics understanding higher than that of peers (P < 0.0001) and were more likely to report referring to studies to answer clinical questions (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.41-4.33; P = 0.002). The correlation of CASE scores with percentage of questions answered correctly was only moderate, supporting discriminant validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The six-item CASE instrument demonstrated content validity, internal consistency, discriminative capability, and criterion validity, including correlation with self-reported behavior, supporting its potential as a useful measure of critical appraisal self-efficacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACR Open Rheumatology\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"4-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/a9/ACR2-5-4.PMC9837389.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACR Open Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr2.11505\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACR Open Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr2.11505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:自我效能感是一个人能够成功完成特定任务的内在信念,它影响着人们的行为。为促进对医学文献的批判性评价,风湿病学培训项目应培养批判性评价的能力和自我效能。本研究旨在探讨临床研究自我效能感测量工具--临床研究评价量表(CRAI)中的部分项目是否可用于测量批判性评价自我效能感(CASE):我们向来自 33 个风湿病学专业的 125 名学员发放了一份调查问卷,其中包括 CRAI 的两个部分。事先确定了与 CASE 相关的六个 CRAI 项目;回答后得出 CASE 分数(总分范围为 0-10;越高 = 对自己成功完成特定任务的能力越有信心)。对 CASE 分数的内部结构以及与领域一致性变量的关系进行了分析:125 名学员中有 112 人(89.6%)填写了问卷。CASE 分数介于 0.5 到 8.2 之间。导致 CASE 分数的六个 CRAI 项目显示出较高的内部一致性(Cronbach's α = 0.95)和单维性。CASE得分较高的参与者对自己的流行病学和生物统计学理解的评价高于同龄人(P 结论),这支持了标准效度:六项目 CASE 工具显示了内容效度、内部一致性、判别能力和标准效度,包括与自我报告行为的相关性,支持其作为关键评价自我效能的有用测量工具的潜力。
An Instrument for Measuring Critical Appraisal Self-Efficacy in Rheumatology Trainees.
Objective: Self-efficacy, the internal belief that one can perform a specific task successfully, influences behavior. To promote critical appraisal of medical literature, rheumatology training programs should foster both competence and self-efficacy for critical appraisal. This study aimed to investigate whether select items from the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), an instrument measuring clinical research self-efficacy, could be used to measure critical appraisal self-efficacy (CASE).
Methods: One hundred twenty-five trainees from 33 rheumatology programs were sent a questionnaire that included two sections of the CRAI. Six CRAI items relevant to CASE were identified a priori; responses generated a CASE score (total score range 0-10; higher = greater confidence in one's ability to perform a specific task successfully). CASE scores' internal structure and relation to domain-concordant variables were analyzed.
Results: Questionnaires were completed by 112 of 125 (89.6%) trainees. CASE scores ranged from 0.5 to 8.2. The six CRAI items contributing to the CASE score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and unidimensionality. Criterion validity was supported by the findings that participants with higher CASE scores rated their epidemiology and biostatistics understanding higher than that of peers (P < 0.0001) and were more likely to report referring to studies to answer clinical questions (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.41-4.33; P = 0.002). The correlation of CASE scores with percentage of questions answered correctly was only moderate, supporting discriminant validity.
Conclusion: The six-item CASE instrument demonstrated content validity, internal consistency, discriminative capability, and criterion validity, including correlation with self-reported behavior, supporting its potential as a useful measure of critical appraisal self-efficacy.