In pursuit of a valid information assessment method for continuing education: a mixed methods study

BMC Medical Education

Roland Grad¹  Pierre Pluye¹  Soumya Bindiganavile Sridhar¹ 

[1] Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Côte-des-neiges, 3rd Floor, Suite 300, Montreal, QC H3S 1Z1, Canada

关键词: Knowledge translation;    Primary health care;    Information assessment method;    Health informatics;    Continuing medical education;    Content validity;   

Others  :  1138598
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-137

 received in 2012-12-20, accepted in 2013-09-25,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Information Assessment Method (IAM) is a popular tool for continuing education and knowledge translation. After a search for information, the IAM allows the health professional to report what was the search objective, its cognitive impact, as well as any use and patient health benefit associated with the retrieved health information. In continuing education programs, professionals read health information, rate it using the IAM, and earn continuing education credit for this brief individual reflective learning activity. IAM items have been iteratively developed using literature reviews and qualitative studies. Thus, our research question was: what is the content validity of IAM items from the users’ perspective?

Methods

A two-step content validation study was conducted. In Step 1, we followed a mixed methods research design, and assessed the relevance and representativeness of IAM items. In this step, data from a longitudinal quantitative study and a qualitative multiple case study involving 40 family physicians were analyzed. In Step 2, IAM items were analyzed and modified based on a set of guiding principles by a multi-disciplinary expert panel.

Results

The content validity of 16 IAM items was supported, and these items were not changed. Nine other items were modified. Three new items were added, including two that were extensions of an existing item.

Conclusion

A content validated version of the IAM (IAM 2011) is available for the continuing education of health professionals.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Bindiganavile Sridhar et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Petticrew M, Roberts H: Systematic reviews in the social sciences. A practical guide. Oxford: Wiley; 2006.
• [2]Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA: Primary care: America's health in a new era. Washington, DC; 1996. National Academy Press
• [3]Pluye P, Grad R, Dawes M, Bartlett J: Seven reasons why health professionals search clinical information-retrieval technology (CIRT): toward an organizational model. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13(1):39-49.
• [4]Pluye P, Grad R, Dunikowski L, Stephenson R: Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: a literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Int J Med Inform 2005, 74(9):745-768.
• [5]Goodman K, Grad R, Pluye P, Nowacki A, Hickner J: Impact of knowledge resources linked to an electronic health record on frequency of unnecessary tests and treatments. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012, 32(2):108-115.
• [6]Pluye P, Grad R, Repchinsky C, Farrell B, Johnson-Lafleur J, Bambrick T, Dawes M, Bartlett G, Rodriguez C, Jovaisas B, et al.: Handbook of research on IT management and clinical data administration in healthcare. In IAM: a comprehensive and systematic information assessment method for electronic knowledge resources. Volume 2 edition. Edited by Dwivedi A. Hershey: IGI Publishing; 2009:521-548.
• [7]Grad R, Pluye P, Mercer J, Marlow B, Beauchamp M, Shulha M, Johnson-Lafleur J, Dauphinee S: Impact of research-based synopses delivered as daily E-mail: a prospective observational study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008, 15(2):240-245.
• [8]Budzinski J, Farrell B, Pluye P, Grad R, Repchinsky C, Jovaisas B, Johnson-Lafleur J: E-portfolios in continuing pharmacy education: a feasibility study of the information assessment method for documenting pharmacists’ reflective learning activities using an electronic drug and therapeutic resource. Am J Pharm Educ 2012, 76(5):e82.
• [9]Grad R, Pluye P, Repchinsky C, Jovaisas B, Ricarte I, Galvao C, Shulha M, Bonar J, Marlow B, Moscovici J: Physician assessments of the value of therapeutic information delivered via email. Can Fam Physicianin press
• [10]Pluye P, Grad R, Repchinsky C, Jovaisas B, Lewis D, Tang D, Granikov V, Bonar J, Marlow B: Better than “best” evidence? the information assessment method can help information providers to use feedback from family physicians for 2-way knowledge translation. Can Fam Physicianin press
• [11]Leung K, Pluye P, Grad R, Weston C: A reflective learning framework to evaluate CME effects on practice reflection. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2010, 30(2):78-88.
• [12]Pluye P, Grad R: How information retrieval technology may impact on physician practice: an organizational case study in family medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 2004, 10(3):413-430.
• [13]Saracevic T, Kantor P: Studying the value of library and information services. Part I. Establishing a theoretical framework. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1997, 48(6):527-542.
• [14]Pluye P, Grad R, Shulha M, Granikov V, Leung K: Using electronic knowledge resources for person centered medicine - I: an evaluation model. Int J Pers Cent Med 2011, 1(2):385-394.
• [15]Haynes S, Richard D: Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 1995, 7(3):238-247.
• [16]Haynes S, Lench H: Incremental validity of new clinical assessment measures. Psychol Assess 2003, 15(4):456-466.
• [17]Smith G, Fischer S, Fister S: Incremental validity principles in test construction. Psychol Assess 2003, 15(4):467-477.
• [18]Creswell J, Plano Clark V: Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.
• [19]O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J: Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ 2010, 341(c4587):1147-1150.
• [20]Carmines E, Zeller R: Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1979.
• [21]Teddlie C, Yu F: Mixed methods sampling. J Mix Methods Res 2007, 1(1):77-100.
• [22]Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods 2006, 5(1):1-11.
• [23]Nunnally J: Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
• [24]Clark L, Watson D: Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 1995, 7(3):309-319.
• [25]Comrey A: Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. J Consult Clin Psychol 1988, 56:754-761.
• [26]Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L: Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley; 2008.
• [27]Nunnally J, Bernstein I: Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
• [28]Bindiganavile Sridhar S: In pursuit of a valid information assessment method. McGill family medicine studies online . 2011. 06(e01). [http://mcgill-fammedstudies-recherchemedfam.pbworks.com/w/page/40769030/MFMSO201106e01]
• [29]Vogt D, King D, King L: Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychol Assess 2004, 16(3):231-243.
• [30]Pluye P, Grad R, Granikov V, Theriault G, Frémont P, Burnand B, Mercer J, Marlow B, Arroll B, Luconi F, et al.: Feasibility of a knowledge translation CME program: courriels cochrane. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012, 32(2):134-141.