Data concerning the Copenhagen tool: A research tool for evaluation of basic life Support educational interventions

The data presented in this article are supplementary data related to the research article entitled “The Copenhagen Tool: A research tool for evaluation of BLS educational interventions” (Jensen et al., 2019). We present the following supplementary materials and data: 1) a standardized scenario used to introduce the test for gathering data on internal structure and additional response process; 2) test sheets used for rating test participant via video recordings; 3) interview-guide for collecting additional response process data; 4) items deemed relevant but not essential for laypersons, first responders and health personnel in the modified Delphi consensus process; 5) inter-rater reliability values for raters using the essential items of the tool to evaluate test participants via video recordings; 6) main themes from coding interviews with raters; 7) comparison of rater results and manikin software output.


Keywords: BLS Education Resuscitation
Intervention Validation scenario used to introduce the test for gathering data on internal structure and additional response process; 2) test sheets used for rating test participant via video recordings; 3) interview-guide for collecting additional response process data; 4) items deemed relevant but not essential for laypersons, first responders and health personnel in the modified Delphi consensus process; 5) inter-rater reliability values for raters using the essential items of the tool to evaluate test participants via video recordings; 6) main themes from coding interviews with raters; 7) comparison of rater results and manikin software output. ©

Value of the Data
• Development and validation of modern tools for psycho motoric tests require validation evidence from several domains. The data in this coupled article is important because it presents validation evidence from the domains not covered in the main article. • The data in this coupled article will benefit users of the Copenhagen Tool.
• Data illustrate how the Copenhagen tool can be applied in a standard setting. This is illustrated by presenting evidence from the domain "internal structure" data from raters who rated post-course video recorded standard scenarios of ERC BLS course participants is presented.

Data Description
The data presented in this article is supplemental data to the study "The Copenhagen Tool: A research tool for evaluation of BLS educational interventions" [1] . Fig. 1 contains the standardized scenario used to introduce the test for gathering data on internal structure and additional response process data. Fig. 2 contains question sheets used for testing internal structure evidence. Fig. 3 contains an interview-guide for collecting additional response process data. Table 1 contains all items deemed relevant but not essential for laypersons, first responders and health care personnel in the modified Delphi process. Table 2 contains internal structure evidence with Krippendorff's alpha scores, comparing the question sheet score of different raters. Table 3 contains main themes of interview coding. Table 4 contains a comparison of rater results and manikin software output. The supplementary data contains raw data, Dataset 1. Modified delphi process answers, raw data, contains all answer by experts from the modified Delphi process. The supplementary Dataset 2. Test data CPH Tool, raw data contains all answers from standardized tests. Inform participant that there is no expectation for any action. We intend for participants to act as they would in real life with a real person.

Case description:
The test has a total duration of 6 minutes. We will notify you when there is 1 minute remaining.
Imagine that you are in your local super market buy groceries. Suddenly a person next to you grabs his/her chest and fall on the floor. You know there is an AED at the entry to the super market. If you call for help a helper will aid you. This will be a second researcher. The breathing of the manikin is breathing is as you observe during the test.
We will inform you when the test is finished.
Can you repeat the scenario?
-Wait for answer -Good. When I say start the test has begun. Are you ready to start?
-Wait for answer -

During test:
Inform participant test is ending in 1 minute

Post test:
Ask two CPR questions Sign participation fee form

Experimental Design, Materials and Methods
This data article includes information on tests conducted for collection of validation evidence to support the use of the Copenhagen Tool presented as the main article [1] . A total of 21 persons participated in the standardized test presented in Fig. 1 . The test participants all had participated in a ERC BLS course immediately prior to the test. The tests were video-recorded and rated by six raters. Raters where experienced CPR course instructor from four different organizations operating in Denmark (Red Cross, Danish Swimming Federation, Danish First Aid Council and Danish Emergency Management Agency). Raters used the question sheet of items deemed essential for different skill levels by the expert panel, as covered in the main article [1] . A list of relevant but not essential items is presented in Table 1 .

Response process evidence
To provide additional response process evidence, all six raters were interviewed using a semi-structured interview-guide as presented in Fig. 3 . The interviews were coded using a phenomenological method modified to enable systematic condensing [2] . All minor themes from the Table 3 Main themes of interview coding.  interviews were identified by two researchers [TWJ and TPM] and condensed into subgroups of themes, and subsequently the two coders collected main themes. Main themes of the interview coding are presented in Table 3 .

Internal structure evidence
Internal structure evidence was collected by analyzing inter-rater reliability. Raters watched the videos in separate rooms and noted achievements on a list containing all elements from all levels shown in Fig. 2 . Inter-rater reliability of video ratings was assessed using Krippendorff's alpha as the reliability measure [3][4][5] as shown in Table 2 . This reliability measure was used as it can be applied regardless of the number of raters, scale of measurements (e.g. binary and continuous), sample sizes, and presence of missing data. An alpha value of one indicates perfect agreement, while an alpha value of zero indicates complete absence of agreement. The analysis was performed using the Statistical Analysis System (version 9.4, city, country) and the KALPHA SAS macro. Krippendorff's alpha is estimated by bootstrapping using 10,0 0 0 bootstrap samples. The 95% confidence interval for Krippendorff's alpha was given as the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap distribution. Table 4 Rater result and manikin software output.

Item Agreement [%]
Hand position Middle of the chest 9.3

Relations to other variables
The evidence domain labeled "relations to other variables " presents associations between assessment scores and other measures of the same content. In this study evidence from this domain was collected with the scope of facilitating comparison of research in BLS educational interventions. We have compared the answers of the raters with that manikin data to provide further sources of comparison. In Table 4 , the estimates of agreement between raters' scores and manikin data output are presented.

Limitations
The authors note Fig. 2 . in this paper contains image of a misplaced AED electrode pad. The long axis of the apical paddle should be orientated in a cranio-caudal direction to minimise transthoracic impedance.

Notes -NOT rating
Below is a complete list of the original intention of each item. To improve the assessment of the rating make sure; you asses from both angles; you asses all items; you judge all items separately and objectively. Remember all items have equal value and should be judged no matter what order they are placed in.

Interview guide
The Copenhagen Tool -

Purpose of interview:
Examine how rater or examinee responses align with the intended construct; including respondent's thought processes, response systems and test security.

Themes Questions
Briefing and presentation Present interviewer and the topic of the interview Presentation of respondent Copenhagen tool response evidence If you were to describe the test questions to a friend or colleague -how would you describe them?