Skip to main content

Table 4 Concordance between the two raters’ Likert scale for each question of the EBP steps

From: Development and pilot testing of a tool to assess evidence-based practice skills among French general practitioners

Step Agreement Weighted Kappa (K) Weighted Kappa excluding missing data
n % K 95% CI K 95% CI
Formulating a focused question
 Diagnostic 19 82.6 0.76 0.53–0.99 0.75 0.51–0.99
 Prognosis 13 56.5 0.58 0.36–0.81 0.56 0.33–0.79
 Etiologic 13 56.5 0.40 0.07–0.72 0.34 −0.00-0.68
 Therapeutic 13 56.5 0.32 −0.02-0.65 0.27 −0.08-0.61
Best information search
 PubMed/MEDLINE 21 86.7 0.75 0.42–1.00 0.71 0.34–1.00
 Guidelines 22 83.3 0.93 0.79–1.00 0.67 0.10–1.00
 Free search (Web) 13 47.4 0.58 0.31–0.85 0.39 0.10–0.67
Critical appraisal
 Methodological validity 18 78.3 0.68 0.40–0.95 0.72 0.47–0.97
 Relevance for patient care 17 73.9 0.59 0.32–0.86 0.53 0.23–0.83
 Significance of results 22 95.7 0.83 0.51–1.00 0.83 0.50–1.00
Synthesis and decision
 Diagnostic article 11 47.8 0.21 −0.01-0.44 0.23 −0.04-0.50
 Prognostic article 9 39.1 0.45 0.24–0.65 0.39 0.20–0.59
 Etiologic article 9 39.1 0.27 0.00–0.53 0.26 0.07–0.45
 Therapeutic article 12 52.2 0.44 0.19–0.70 0.37 0.11–0.63
  1. n = number of participants with agreement between raters, CI = confidence interval