Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in a large and representative Swedish
- PDF / 1,013,100 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 48 Downloads / 228 Views
(2020) 20:254
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in a large and representative Swedish sample: is the use of the total scale and subscale scores justified? Anna Helena Elisabeth Santesson1* , Martin Bäckström2, Robert Holmberg2, Sean Perrin2 and Håkan Jarbin1
Abstract Background: There is a call for valid and reliable instruments to evaluate implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP). The 15-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) measures attitude toward EBP, incorporating four lower-order factor subscales (Appeal, Requirements, Openness, and Divergence) and a Total scale (General Attitudes). It is one of a few measures of EBP attitudes evaluated for its psychometric properties. The reliability of the Total scale has been repeatedly supported, but also the multidimensionality of the inventory. However, whether all of the items contribute to the EBPAS Total beyond their subscales has yet to be demonstrated. In addition, the Divergence subscale has been questioned because of its low correlation with the other subscales and low inter-item correlations. The EBPAS is widely used to tailor and evaluate implementation efforts, but a Swedish version has not yet been validated. This study aimed to contribute to the development and cross-validation of the EBPAS by examining the factor structure of t a Swedish-language version in a large sample of mental health professionals. Methods: The EBPAS was translated into Swedish and completed by 570 mental health professionals working in child and adolescent psychiatry settings spread across Sweden. The factor structure was examined using first-order, secondorder and bifactor confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models. Results: Results suggested adequate fit for all CFA models. The EBPAS Total was strongly supported in the Swedish version. Support for the hierarchical second-order model was also strong, while the bifactor model gave mixed support for the subscales. The Openness and Requirements subscales came out best, while there were problems with both the Appeal (e.g. not different from the General Attitudes factor) and the Divergence subscales (e.g. low reliability). (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected] 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, BMC F12, S-, 221 84 Lund, Sweden Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mater
Data Loading...
