BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Nursing Research Self-Efficacy Scale (NURSES) was designed to measure individual nurses' degree of research self-efficacy and their perceptions regarding their unit's collective support of research use. Development for the NURSES instrument spanned a 4-year period, which included initial development, revisions, and psychometric evaluations. METHOD: The NURSES is a 38-item Likert-scale instrument developed through ongoing instrument validation that included content validation and exploratory and confirmatory analysis. The 5 subscales include obtaining science-based knowledge resources, critically reading and evaluating quantitative research literature, critically reading and evaluating qualitative research literature, understanding and applying theory, and collective research efficacy. RESULTS: Over a 4-year period, approximately 1000 practicing nurses from multiple hospitals responded to the instrument. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the existence of four subscales for research self-efficacy and one subscale for collective research efficacy. Reliability for the subscales was excellent, ranging from .94 to .97. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals may wish to use the NURSES instrument as an orientation tool, or to examine relationships between research efficacy and nurses' professional development. Health care facilities on a Magnet journey might also use the NURSES instrument to assess their nursing staff as they pursue evidence-based practice and conduct research.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Nursing Research Self-Efficacy Scale (NURSES) was designed to measure individual nurses' degree of research self-efficacy and their perceptions regarding their unit's collective support of research use. Development for the NURSES instrument spanned a 4-year period, which included initial development, revisions, and psychometric evaluations. METHOD: The NURSES is a 38-item Likert-scale instrument developed through ongoing instrument validation that included content validation and exploratory and confirmatory analysis. The 5 subscales include obtaining science-based knowledge resources, critically reading and evaluating quantitative research literature, critically reading and evaluating qualitative research literature, understanding and applying theory, and collective research efficacy. RESULTS: Over a 4-year period, approximately 1000 practicing nurses from multiple hospitals responded to the instrument. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the existence of four subscales for research self-efficacy and one subscale for collective research efficacy. Reliability for the subscales was excellent, ranging from .94 to .97. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals may wish to use the NURSES instrument as an orientation tool, or to examine relationships between research efficacy and nurses' professional development. Health care facilities on a Magnet journey might also use the NURSES instrument to assess their nursing staff as they pursue evidence-based practice and conduct research.