PubMed · 6045856
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1967. Schools offering programs in physical therapy.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj%2F47.5.425
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In this study, critical appraisal skills of physical therapists who were inexperienced and expert researchers were compared and the effect of the following independent variables on the appraisal skills of novices was examined: years of physical therapy practice, postgraduate experience with research, level of comfort with research, journal reading habits, and content-specific expertise. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Four expert and 20 inexperienced researchers critiqued the same research article. A content analysis of the expert critiques was used to develop a set of 12 items of concerns about the study. RESULTS: Experts identified a mean of 7.75 items of concern; novices identified a mean of 3.95 items. For 10 of the 12 items, a greater proportion of experts identified each concern compared with the novices. Novices had comparatively less difficulty identifying concerns with internal validity than they did identifying issues relating to construct validity. Only one of the variables--content-specific expertise--was associated with differences in critical appraisal skills among the novices. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: These finding suggest that analysis of construct issues in research articles is a more advanced skill than analysis of research design and that critical appraisal of research literature is enhanced by clinical experiences related to the subject of the research report.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.