Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

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

Authors: Marte Rye, Elisa M. Torres, Oddgeir Friborg, Ingunn Skre, Gregory A. Aarons

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Short and valid instruments for measuring factors facilitating or hindering implementation efforts are called for. This article describes (1) the adaptation of a shorter version of the Evidence-based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS-50 items), and (2) the psychometric properties of the shortened version in both US and Norwegian data.

Methods

The US participants were mental health service providers (N = 418) recruited from clinics providing mental health services in San Diego County, California. The Norwegian participants were psychologists, psychiatric nurses, and psychology students (N = 838) recruited from the Norwegian Psychological Association and the Norwegian Nurses Organization. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach was used.

Results

The reduction resulted in 36 items named EBPAS-36, and the original 12 factor model was maintained. The EBPAS-36 had acceptable model fit, as indicated by a low degree of misspecification errors in both the US (RMSEA = .045 (CI90% .040–.049); SRMR = .05) and the Norwegian data (RMSEA = .052 (CI90% .047–.056, SRMR = .07). Incremental model fit was fair in the US (CFI = .93, TLI = .91) and in the Norwegian samples (CFI = .91, TLI = .89). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in the US and the Norwegian samples were good for the total EBPAS-36 score (.79 and .86, respectively) and were ranged from adequate to excellent for the subscales (US .60–.91 and Norway .61–.92).

Conclusions

The EBPAS-36 has adequate psychometric properties both in US and Norwegian samples, hence indicating cross-cultural validity. It is a brief, pragmatic, and more user-friendly instrument than the EBPAS-50, yet maintains a broad scope by retaining the original 12 measurement domains.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Haines A, Kuruvilla S, Borchert M. Bridging the implementation gap between knowledge and action for health. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(10):724–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
McHugh RK, Barlow DH. The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments. A review of current efforts. Am Psychol. 2010;65(2):73–84.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Lewis CC, et al. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: a methodology to promote rigorous evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
8.
9.
Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(2):237–43.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38(1):4–23.CrossRef
11.
Aarons GA. Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res. 2004;6(2):61–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Aarons GA. Measuring provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice: consideration of organizational context and individual differences. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2005;14(2):255–71. viii.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Aarons GA, et al. Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: the evidence based practice attitude scale-50. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2012;39(5):331–40.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3–4):327–50.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Glisson C, et al. Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008;35(1–2):98–113.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Lilienfeld SO, et al. Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: root causes and constructive remedies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(7):883–900.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Aarons GA. Transformational and transactional leadership: association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(8):1162–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Aarons GA, et al. Psychometric properties and U.S. National norms of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Psychol Assess. 2010;22(2):356–65.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Aarons GA, et al. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale in a geographically diverse sample of community mental health providers. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007;34(5):465–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Aarons GA, Sawitzky AC. Organizational culture and climate and mental health provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychol Serv. 2006;3(1):61–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Henggeler SW, et al. Statewide adoption and initial implementation of contingency management for substance-abusing adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76(4):556–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Sousa DS, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;17:268–74.CrossRefPubMed
26.
APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. Evidence-based practice in psychology. Am Psychol. 2006;61(4):271–85.CrossRef
27.
Psykologforening N. Prinsipperklæring om evidensbasert psykologisk praksis. Tidsskrift Nor Psykologforening. 2007;9:1127–8.
28.
Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and Categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(3):354–73.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009;14(1):6–23.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model-a Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRef
31.
Gliem JA, Gliem RR. Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. In: Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. 2003.
32.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
33.
Aarons GA, Green AE, Miller E. Researching readiness for implementation of evidence-based practice. In: Kelly B, Perkins DF, editors. Handbook of Implementation Science for Psychology in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
34.
Melas CD, et al. Evaluating the properties of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in health care. Psychol Assess. 2012;24(4):867–76.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Aarons GA, et al. The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study. Implement Sci. 2012;7:56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Knight D, et al. Designing the optimal JJ-TRIALS study: EPIS as a theoretical framework for selection and timing of implementation interventions. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2015;10(1):A29.CrossRefPubMedCentral
37.
Stahmer AC, Aarons GA. Attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practices: a comparison of autism early intervention providers and children’s mental health providers. Psychol Serv. 2009;6(3):223–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Aarons GA, Sommerfeld DH. Leadership, innovation climate, and attitudes toward evidence-based practice during a statewide implementation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(4):423–31.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Egeland KM, et al. Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS): to measure implementation readiness. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
van Sonsbeek MAMS, et al. Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol Health. 2011;26(9):1113–27.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Proctor E, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38(2):65–76.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Marte Rye
Elisa M. Torres
Oddgeir Friborg
Ingunn Skre
Gregory A. Aarons
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0573-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Implementation Science 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Electronic Laboratory Medicine ordering with evidence-based Order sets in primary care (ELMO study): protocol for a cluster randomised trial

Research

Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures

Study protocol

Dynamics behind the scale up of evidence-based obesity prevention: protocol for a multi-site case study of an electronic implementation monitoring system in health promotion practice

Research

Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study

Editorial

Enhancing the reporting of implementation research

Systematic review

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary healthcare: a systematic review