Serviços Personalizados
Journal
Artigo
Indicadores
- Citado por SciELO
- Acessos
Links relacionados
- Similares em SciELO
Compartilhar
Investigación en educación médica
versão On-line ISSN 2007-5057
Resumo
COBOS AGUILAR, Héctor; PEREZ CORTES, Patricia; GARZA QUINTANILLA, Héctor de la e OCHOA CASTRO, Carlos Enrique. Process of validation of an instrument to evaluate the critical reading in medical research papers. Investigación educ. médica [online]. 2015, vol.4, n.16, pp.200-206. ISSN 2007-5057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riem.2015.04.005.
Introduction
Critical appraisal is a learning tool that should be familiar to professors and students. Educational strategies should focus on the student's active learning. Valid and reliable tools should be constructed in order to measure progress in this field.
Objective
To construct, validate and determine the consistency of a tool for evaluating critical reading.
Method
Tool: a review was conducted on published articles on the construction of evaluation tools, surveys, cases and controls, diagnostic tests, randomised clinical trials, cohorts, follow-up and meta-analyses. Eight articles on each design were finally selected. They were summarised and statements and items were developed, by examining the document validity, consistency, design, statistics, results, and the discussion. The items were based on critical reading indicators: interpretation, judgment, and proposals. Validation was obtained using the Delphi technique in 2 rounds that included six Doctors or Masters in Science or Education, previously experienced in the use of these tools. It was balanced with 96 items, 16 per design and 32 per indicator, with 48 “true or false” answers. Grading was blind and using a software program to avoid capture errors. Medians were obtained for analysis. A pilot test was applied to two groups of student interns (neophytes G1 and intervened G2) and consistency was established with the Kuder-Richardson formula. Extremes were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of randomness was also determined.
Results
A consistency of 0.79 was obtained, although concurrent validity was inadequate (Spearman = 0.31). There were overall differences in the group median values, G1 vs. G2 (11 vs. 29) as well as in random answers (70% vs.8%), and in comparison of extremes (P < .0019).
Conclusions
It is necessary to construct and update tools for measuring the development of this complex and transcendental ability required for the critical appraisal of published medical information.
Palavras-chave : Instrument; Validity; Consistency; Critical reading; Internship.