Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS)

Abstract

BackgroundThe Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was developed in the United States to assess attitudes of mental health and welfare professionals toward evidence-based interventions. Although the EBPAS has been translated in different languages and is being used in several countries, all research on the psychometric properties of the EBPAS within youth care has been carried out in the United States. The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the EBPAS.MethodsAfter translation into Dutch, the Dutch version of the EBPAS was examined in a diverse sample of 270 youth care professionals working in five institutions in the Netherlands. We examined the factor structure with both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and the internal consistency reliability. We also conducted multiple linear regression analyses to examine the association of EBPAS scores with professionals’ characteristics. It was hypothesized that responses to the EBPAS items could be explained by one general factor plus four specific factors, good to excellent internal consistency reliability would be found, and EBPAS scores would vary by age, sex, and educational level.ResultsThe exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution according to the hypothesized dimensions: Requirements, Appeal, Openness, and Divergence. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.67 to 0.89, and the overall scale alpha was 0.72. The confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the factor structure and suggested that the lower order EBPAS factors are indicators of a higher order construct. However, Divergence was not significantly correlated with any of the subscales or the total score. The confirmatory bifactor analysis endorsed that variance was explained both by a general attitude towards evidence-based interventions and by four specific factors. The regression analyses showed an association between EBPAS scores and youth care professionals’ age, sex, and educational level.ConclusionsThe present study provides strong support for a structure with a general factor plus four specific factors and internal consistency reliability of the Dutch version of the EBPAS in a diverse sample of youth care professionals. Hence, the factor structure and reliability of the original version of the EBPAS seem generalizable to the Dutch version of the EBPAS.

The deadlock of saying “That is what we already do!” A thematic analysis of mental healthcare professionals’ reactions to using an evidence‐based intervention

“…The MHCPs, who were not able to differentiate between traditional practice and the GSD method, rejecting the theoretical underpinnings of GSD, were also the MHCPs with the longest experience. According to van Sonsbeek et al (), professionals with long experience in practice seem to be more autonomous and assertive in making decisions about using evidence‐based interventions rather attaching more importance to their own clinical experience than appreciating research‐based interventions. This corresponds well with the MHCPs with long clinical experience in our study, as they relied on their experience‐based knowledge and rejected the theoretical underpinnings.…”

“…When implementing evidence‐based interventions in the future, it is therefore important to show consideration for older professionals with long experience. The reverse situation was found with younger professionals with less clinical experience, as they had a more positive attitude towards evidence‐based interventions because they have had more prior exposure to these interventions during their education than older professionals (van Sonsbeek et al, ). The MHCPs accepting the GSD method as a new intervention were also the youngest.…”

“…Implementation of research requires not only support from management, but also mental health nurses’ readiness‐to‐change practice, and it is challenging to change familiar and comfortable practices (Zauszniewski & Suresky, ); moreover, it is a challenge to translate research knowledge into practice (Forchuk et al, ). Further, evidence shows that health professionals´ values and beliefs play an important role when implementing EBP in real‐world healthcare settings (van Sonsbeek et al, ). Incorporating research evidence into clinical practice takes on average 17 years (Morris, Wooding, & Grant, ); therefore, it is important to consider factors promoting or impeding the implementation process of evidence‐based interventions.…”

The Evidence-based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36): a brief and pragmatic measure of attitudes to evidence-based practice validated in US and Norwegian samples

“…Second, burden for the measure is low for respondents and the measure can be completed in just a few minutes. Third, the EBPAS and/or EBPAS-50 have been used in a variety of settings including health/medicine [34], mental health [35], substance abuse [36], education [37], social care [38], and across countries and cultures [34, 39, 40]. Fourth, norms have been established for behavioral health settings in the United States [21], and thus can be used for benchmarking in this setting, and as the measures are utilized more broadly, evidence and normative data will become available to aid in interpretation and in understanding of both mean scores and variability in responses across countries, cultures, and various health settings.…”

Development and Validation of the Dutch EBPAS‐ve and EBPQ‐ve for Nursing Assistants and Nurses with a Vocational Education

“…Two reviews elicited that valid EBP instruments are scarce (Leung, Trevena, & Waters, ; Oude Rengerink et al, ) and that none targeted the nursing assistants and registered vocationally trained nurses. The Evidence‐Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) showed the highest validity characteristics (Leung et al, ; Upton, Upton, & Scurlock‐Evans, ). The Evidence‐Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) focuses specifically on adopting EBP in practice and showed several psychometric characteristics (Aarons et al, ).…”