↓ Skip to main content

Measuring evidence-based practice knowledge and skills in occupational therapy—a brief instrument

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring evidence-based practice knowledge and skills in occupational therapy—a brief instrument
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0475-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Buchanan, Jennifer Jelsma, Nandi Siegfried

Abstract

Valid and reliable instruments are required to measure the effect of educational interventions to improve evidence-based practice (EBP) knowledge and skills in occupational therapy. The aims of this paper are to: 1) describe amendments to the Adapted Fresno Test of Competence in EBP (AFT), and 2) report the psychometric properties of the modified instrument when used with South African occupational therapists. The clinical utility of the AFT was evaluated for use with South African occupational therapists and modifications made. The modified AFT was used in two studies to assess its reliability and validity. In Study 1 a convenience sample of 26 occupational therapists in private practice or government-funded health facilities in a South African province were recruited to complete the modified AFT on two occasions 1 week apart. Completed questionnaires were scored independently by two raters. Inter-rater, test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Study 2 was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial involving occupational therapists in four Western Cape Department of Health district municipalities (n = 58). Therapists were randomised in matched pairs to one of two educational interventions (interactive or didactic), and completed the modified AFT at baseline and 12 weeks after the intervention. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Data were not normally distributed, thus non-parametric statistics were used. In Study 1, 21 of 26 participants completed the questionnaire twice. Test-retest (ICC = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.88-0.98) and inter-rater reliability (Time 1: ICC = 0.995, 95 % CI = 0.99-0.998; Time 2: ICC = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.97-0.995) were excellent for total scores. Internal consistency based on time 1 scores was satisfactory (α = 0.70). In Study 2, 28 participants received an interactive educational intervention and completed the modified AFT at baseline and 12 weeks later. Median total SAFT scores increased significantly from baseline to 12-weeks (Z = -4.078, p < 0.001) with a moderate effect size (r = 0.55). The modified AFT has demonstrated validity for detecting differences in EBP knowledge between two groups. It also has excellent test-retest and inter-rater reliability. The instrument is recommended for contexts where EBP is an emerging approach and time is at a premium. Pan African Controlled Trials Register PACTR201201000346141 . Registered 31 January 2012. Clinical Trials NCT01512823 . Registered 1 February 2012. South African National Clinical Trial Register DOH2710093067 . Registered 27 October 2009.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 23 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,349,796
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,260
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,816
of 284,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#46
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.