IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0249660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and reliability of the Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire: A cross-sectional study

Author

Listed:
  • Mohd Noor Norhayati
  • Zanaridah Mat Nawi

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a widely accepted scientific advancement in clinical settings that helps achieve better, safer, and more cost-effective healthcare. However, presently, validated instruments to evaluate healthcare professionals’ attitude and practices toward implementing EBM are not widely available. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of a newly developed knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) questionnaire on EBM for use among healthcare professionals. Methods: The Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire was tested among physicians in a government hospital between July and August 2018. Exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability-based Cronbach’s alpha statistic were conducted. Results: The questionnaire was distributed among 94 physicians, and 90 responded (response rate of 95.7%). The initial number of items in the KAP domains of the Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire were 15, 17, and 13, respectively; however, two items in the practice domain with communalities

Suggested Citation

  • Mohd Noor Norhayati & Zanaridah Mat Nawi, 2021. "Validity and reliability of the Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-11, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0249660
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249660
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249660&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0249660?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0249660. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.