Measures of Knowledge and Skills for Evidence-Based Practice: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of knowledge and skills in seeking, evaluating, and applying evidence are barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP). The measurement of these constructs can inform educational initiatives aimed at reducing EBP barriers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to provide a critical appraisal of the rehabilitation literature describing quantitative measures of EBP knowledge and skills. METHODS: Measures used with occupational therapists to evaluate EBP knowledge or skills were compiled from a search of the EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, and PSYCINFO databases. Measures were evaluated using adapted criteria from the CanChild Outcome Measures Rating Form. FINDINGS: Of the 15 measures identified, three met criteria as being adequate for the measurement of EBP knowledge and skills. IMPLICATIONS: Further measure development needs to address limitations of existing measures. Research to evaluate the psychometric properties of existing or novel measures of knowledge and skills related to EBP may improve their utility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".