BACKGROUND: Previous survey tools operationalising knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about evidence-based practice (EBP) have shortcomings in content, psychometric properties and target audience. AIMS: This study developed and psychometrically assessed a self-report trans-professional questionnaire to describe an EBP profile. METHODS: Sixty-six items were collated from existing EBP questionnaires and administered to 526 academics and students from health and non-health backgrounds. Principal component factor analysis revealed the presence of five factors (Relevance, Terminology, Confidence, Practice and Sympathy). Following expert panel review and pilot testing, the 58-item final questionnaire was disseminated to 105 subjects on two occasions. Test-retest and internal reliability were quantified using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cronbach's alpha, convergent validity against a commonly used EBP questionnaire by Pearson's correlation coefficient and discriminative validity via analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on exposure to EBP training. RESULTS: The final questionnaire demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.96), test-retest reliability (ICCs range 0.77-0.94) and convergent validity (Practice 0.66, Confidence 0.80 and Sympathy 0.54). Three factors (Relevance, Terminology and Confidence) distinguished EBP exposure groups (ANOVA p < 0.001-0.004). CONCLUSION: The evidence-based practice profile (EBP(2)) questionnaire is a reliable instrument with the ability to discriminate for three factors, between respondents with differing EBP exposures.
BACKGROUND: Previous survey tools operationalising knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about evidence-based practice (EBP) have shortcomings in content, psychometric properties and target audience. AIMS: This study developed and psychometrically assessed a self-report trans-professional questionnaire to describe an EBP profile. METHODS: Sixty-six items were collated from existing EBP questionnaires and administered to 526 academics and students from health and non-health backgrounds. Principal component factor analysis revealed the presence of five factors (Relevance, Terminology, Confidence, Practice and Sympathy). Following expert panel review and pilot testing, the 58-item final questionnaire was disseminated to 105 subjects on two occasions. Test-retest and internal reliability were quantified using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cronbach's alpha, convergent validity against a commonly used EBP questionnaire by Pearson's correlation coefficient and discriminative validity via analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on exposure to EBP training. RESULTS: The final questionnaire demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.96), test-retest reliability (ICCs range 0.77-0.94) and convergent validity (Practice 0.66, Confidence 0.80 and Sympathy 0.54). Three factors (Relevance, Terminology and Confidence) distinguished EBP exposure groups (ANOVA p < 0.001-0.004). CONCLUSION: The evidence-based practice profile (EBP(2)) questionnaire is a reliable instrument with the ability to discriminate for three factors, between respondents with differing EBP exposures.
Authors: Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez; Joan Ernest de Pedro-Gómez; José Miguel Morales-Asencio; Miquel Bennasar-Veny; Pedro Sastre-Fullana; Albert Sesé-Abad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ana Rosa Alconero-Camarero; Carmen Sarabia-Cobo; Montserrat Antonín-Martin; Alicia Borras-Santos; Montserrat Edo-Gual; Vicente Gea-Caballero; José Luis Gómez-Urquiza; José Rafael González-López; María Antonia Martínez-Momblán; Alfonso Meneses-Monroy; Montserrat Montaña-Peironcely; Diego Serrano-Gómez; Azucena Santillán-García Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna C Phillips; Lucy K Lewis; Maureen P McEvoy; James Galipeau; Paul Glasziou; Marilyn Hammick; David Moher; Julie Tilson; Marie T Williams Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 2.463