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