ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Novice, intermediate, and expert EBM clinicians: (Ramos et al., 2003; total n = 96; novice family practice residents and faculty without formal EBM training, n = 43; self-identified experts in EBM, n = 53)

• Each short answer question was scored on a scale of 1-6, with a total of 7  categories. The total scores were interpreted as follows:

Medical students and faculty without Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) training

• 95.6 (Ramos et al., 2003, n = 43)
• 57.6 ¡À 23.1 (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010; n = 108)

Medical students with prior EBM training (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010; n = 44)

• 75.9 ¡À 29.2

Family medicine physicians (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010; n = 17)

• 110.4 ¡À 11.5

Self-identified EBM Experts

• 147.5 (Ramos et al., 2003, n = 53)
• 149.8 ¡À 23.2 (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010; n = 17, Primary care physician researchers)

Family medicine faculty: (Ramos et al., 2003; n = 19; raters are two research investigators who tested reliability with a new validation group utilizing the finalized grading rubric)

• Excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.98)

Medical students with and without prior EBM training: (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2011; n = 152; mean age = 31(8); 108 residents without EBP training and 44 with EBM training; women 76.3%; pretest and posttest after receiving EBP educational intervention; Spanish translation; raters consisted of two research investigators; case scenarios were different at pre and posttest)

• Excellent inter-rater reliability; pre-educational intervention (ICC = 0.95)
• Excellent inter-rater reliability; post-educational intervention (ICC = 0.85)

Medical students with and without prior EBM training: (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010)

• Excellent internal consistency pretest (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88)
• Adequate internal consistency posttest (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.77)

Self-identified EBM experts, family  medicine students and faculty: (Ramos et al., 2003)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88)

Medical students with and without prior EBM training: (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010)

• Significant linear trend (p < 0.001) for sequentially improved mean score with level of EBP training

Medical students and faculty: (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2009)

• Cognitive debriefing utilized to maintain content validity with the English version

Medical students and faculty:(Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010; medical residents, n = 5; specialists in family medicine physicians, n = 5)

• Interviews were conducted to determine degree of understanding with each item and suggestions were made to rephrase items. The authors then analyzed this data and applied it to the pretest.

Medical school faculty with expertise in EBM: (Ramos et al., 2003)

• Teachers of evidenced-based medicince reviewed the test and grading rubric. Controversial elements were removed and requested additional elements were added.

Medical students with and without prior EBM training: (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010)

• Excellent; no instances of minimal or maximal scores at pretest (range 35 to 172.2)

Medical students without prior EBM training: (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010)

• Large effect size = 1.77

Medical students with prior EBM training: (Argimon-Pall¨¤s et al., 2010)

• Large effect size = 1.78