The Utrecht questionnaire (U-CEP) measuring knowledge on clinical epidemiology proved to be valid
Publication date
2017-02
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
Document Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
taverne
Abstract
Objectives: Knowledge on clinical epidemiology is crucial to practice evidence-based medicine. We describe the development and validation of the Utrecht questionnaire on knowledge on Clinical epidemiology for Evidence-based Practice (U-CEP); an assessment tool to be used in the training of clinicians. Study Design and Setting: The U-CEP was developed in two formats: two sets of 25 questions and a combined set of 50. The validation was performed among postgraduate general practice (GP) trainees, hospital trainees, GP supervisors, and experts. Internal consistency, internal reliability (item-total correlation), item discrimination index, item difficulty, content validity, construct validity, responsiveness, test-retest reliability, and feasibility were assessed. The questionnaire was externally validated. Results: Internal consistency was good with a Cronbach alpha of 0.8. The median item-total correlation and mean item discrimination index were satisfactory. Both sets were perceived as relevant to clinical practice. Construct validity was good. Both sets were responsive but failed on test-retest reliability. One set took 24 minutes and the other 33 minutes to complete, on average. External GP trainees had comparable results. Conclusion: The U-CEP is a valid questionnaire to assess knowledge on clinical epidemiology, which is a prerequisite for practicing evidence-based medicine in daily clinical practice.
Keywords
Assessment, Clinical epidemiology, Evidence-based medicine, Knowledge, Questionnaire, Validation, Taverne, Epidemiology, Journal Article
Citation
Kortekaas, M F, Bartelink, M L E L, de Groot, E, Korving, H, de Wit, N J, Grobbee, D E & Hoes, A W 2017, 'The Utrecht questionnaire (U-CEP) measuring knowledge on clinical epidemiology proved to be valid', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 82, pp. 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.009