Refining the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale: An Alternative Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Abstract

Barriers to adopting evidence-based practices into real-world mental health organizations have received considerable attention and study. One particular attempt is Aarons’s Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS), which measures a worker’s attitudes toward adopting new treatments, interventions, and practices. This study follows Aarons’s work by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis of the EBPAS administered in a large child and family human service agency in New York state (N = 1,273). Replicating Aarons et al.’s four-factor model of the EBPAS, the authors found that, within the model, the pattern of factor loadings that was apparent in previous investigations held for their data as well. That is, the factor loadings of items within the Divergence subscale were larger for items 5 and 7 and smaller for items 3 and 6. The authors found that both of their alternative models, one that added a residual covariance to items in the Divergence factor and a five-factor model that divided the Divergence factor into two factors, fit their data better than Aarons et al.’s model. They also investigated measurement and structural invariance for workers in community-based and in residential programs using a multiple group analysis. Measurement invariance was supported but factor means and correlations differed.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale in a large and representative sample of Child and Adolescent Mental Health practitioners: Is the use of a total scale score justified?

“…First-order models focus on the subdomains. According to recent standards (31), the four-factor model has yielded poor to acceptable model t (26). The factor loadings have generally been moderate to strong with weakest loadings for Divergence.…”

“…The construct validity has been studied using different sample sizes (n= 146 vs. n=1,273), in various settings (e.g., mental health, health, correctional service, social service, residential care, educational sector), with participants at different levels (front line providers, administrators, consultants) and diverse cultures (e.g. USA, Europe, Africa, Asia) (13,(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30). Different factor models with and without correlated residuals have been tted to the data: a) rst-order models, b) second-order models, and c) a bifactor model.…”

Conducting Measurement Invariance Tests with Ordinal Data: A Guide for Social Work Researchers

“…More than half (54.4%) of the invariance reports appeared in either Research on Social Work Practice (n = 19; 33.3%) or Social Work Research (n =12; 21.1%). Of the 57 articles, only three (Godfrey et al, 2012;Granillo, 2012;Silver Wolf, Dulmus, Maguin, & Fava, 2014) provided adequate information on analytic procedures, reported using robust WLS and a polychoric correlation matrix, and used recommended invariance testing steps. Our review suggests the need among social work researchers for guidance in appropriate invariance testing with ordinal data.…”

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

“…Yet, EBP is not the standard of care in many healthcare systems across the United States and globe” (Melnyk et al, , p. 16). Nurses tend to work as they have always done, based on experience or tradition and it is challenging to integrate EBP in nursing routines (Richards, Coulthard, Borglin, & team, ; Warren et al, ). EBP is often seen from a hospital context and delivered by professionals with a Bachelor's or Master's degree which is comparable with levels 6 and 7 of the European Qualification Framework (EQF; European‐Commission, ; Gerrish et al, ; Maaskant, Knops, Ubbink, & Vermeulen, ).…”