15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Adapted Fresno test for speech pathologists, social workers, and dieticians/nutritionists: validation and reliability testing

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The current versions of the Adapted Fresno test (AFT) are limited to physiotherapists and occupational therapists, and new scenarios and scoring rubrics are required for other allied health disciplines. The aim of this study was to examine the validity, reliability, and internal consistency of the AFT developed for speech pathologists (SPs), social workers (SWs), and dieticians/nutritionists (DNs).

          Materials and methods

          An expert panel from each discipline was formed to content-validate the AFT. A draft instrument, including clinical scenarios, questionnaire, and scoring rubric, was developed. The new versions were completed by ten SPs, 16 SWs, and 12 DNs, and scored by four raters. Interrater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (2,1) for the individual AFT items and the total score. The internal consistency of the AFT was examined using Cronbach’s α.

          Results

          Two new clinical scenarios and a revised scoring rubric were developed for each discipline. The reliability among raters was excellent for questions 1, 3, and 6 across all disciplines. Question 7 showed excellent reliability for SPs, but not for SWs and DNs. All other reliability coefficients increased to moderate or excellent levels following training. Cronbach’s α was 0.71 for SPs, 0.68 for SWs, and 0.74 for DNs, indicating that internal consistency was acceptable for all disciplines.

          Conclusion

          There is preliminary evidence to show that AFT is a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of evidence-based practice knowledge and skills of SPs, SWs, and DNs. Further research is required to establish its sensitivity to detect change in knowledge and skills following an educational program.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity.

          The authors examined data (N = 34,108) on the differential reliability and validity of facet scales from the NEO Inventories. They evaluated the extent to which (a) psychometric properties of facet scales are generalizable across ages, cultures, and methods of measurement, and, (b) validity criteria are associated with different forms of reliability. Composite estimates of facet scale stability, heritability, and cross-observer validity were broadly generalizable. Two estimates of retest reliability were independent predictors of the three validity criteria; none of three estimates of internal consistency was. Available evidence suggests the same pattern of results for other personality inventories. Internal consistency of scales can be useful as a check on data quality but appears to be of limited utility for evaluating the potential validity of developed scales, and it should not be used as a substitute for retest reliability. Further research on the nature and determinants of retest reliability is needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Instruments for evaluating education in evidence-based practice: a systematic review.

            Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the integration of the best research evidence with patients' values and clinical circumstances in clinical decision making. Teaching of EBP should be evaluated and guided by evidence of its own effectiveness. To appraise, summarize, and describe currently available EBP teaching evaluation instruments. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HAPI, and ERIC databases; reference lists of retrieved articles; EBP Internet sites; and 8 education journals from 1980 through April 2006. For inclusion, studies had to report an instrument evaluating EBP, contain sufficient description to permit analysis, and present quantitative results of administering the instrument. Two raters independently abstracted information on the development, format, learner levels, evaluation domains, feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EBP evaluation instruments from each article. We defined 3 levels of instruments based on the type, extent, methods, and results of psychometric testing and suitability for different evaluation purposes. Of 347 articles identified, 115 were included, representing 104 unique instruments. The instruments were most commonly administered to medical students and postgraduate trainees and evaluated EBP skills. Among EBP skills, acquiring evidence and appraising evidence were most commonly evaluated, but newer instruments evaluated asking answerable questions and applying evidence to individual patients. Most behavior instruments measured the performance of EBP steps in practice but newer instruments documented the performance of evidence-based clinical maneuvers or patient-level outcomes. At least 1 type of validity evidence was demonstrated for 53% of instruments, but 3 or more types of validity evidence were established for only 10%. High-quality instruments were identified for evaluating the EBP competence of individual trainees, determining the effectiveness of EBP curricula, and assessing EBP behaviors with objective outcome measures. Instruments with reasonable validity are available for evaluating some domains of EBP and may be targeted to different evaluation needs. Further development and testing is required to evaluate EBP attitudes, behaviors, and more recently articulated EBP skills.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation of the Fresno test of competence in evidence based medicine.

              To describe the development and validation of a test of knowledge and skills in evidence based medicine. Cross sectional study. Family practice residency programme in California; a list server for those who teach evidence based medicine; and an evidence based medicine seminar series. Family practice residents and faculty members (n=43); volunteers self identified as experts in evidence based medicine (n=53); family practice teachers (19) beginning a seminar series on evidence based medicine. The Fresno test is a performance based measure for use in medical education that assesses a wide range of evidence based medicine skills. Open ended questions are scored with standardised grading rubrics. Calculation skills are assessed by fill in the blank questions. Inter-rater reliability, internal reliability, item analyses, and construct validity. Inter-rater correlations ranged from 0.76 to 0.98 for individual items. Cronbach's alpha was 0.88. Item difficulties ranged from moderate to difficult, all with positive and strong ability to discriminate between candidates. Experts scored consistently higher than novices. On the 212 point test, the novice mean was 95.6 and the expert mean was 147.5 (P<0.001). On individual items, a higher proportion of experts than novices earned passing scores on 15 of the 17 items. The Fresno test is a reliable and valid test for detecting the effect of instruction in evidence based medicine. Its use in other settings requires further exploration.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Multidiscip Healthc
                J Multidiscip Healthc
                Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
                Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-2390
                2014
                27 February 2014
                : 7
                : 129-135
                Affiliations
                International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Lucylynn Lizarondo, International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia, Tel +61 8 8302 2099, Fax +61 8 8302 2766, Email lucylynn.lizarondo@ 123456unisa.edu.au
                Article
                jmdh-7-129
                10.2147/JMDH.S58603
                3942213
                24600233
                76764560-edaa-43d9-8dac-730c5a397d04
                © 2014 Lizarondo et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Short Report

                Medicine
                adapted fresno test,evidence-based practice,speech pathology,social work,dietetics/nutrition

                Comments

                Comment on this article