Titlestad Kristine Berg, Snibsoer Anne Kristin, Stromme Hilde, Nortvedt Monica Wammen, Graverholt Birgitte, Espehaug Birgitte
Institute of Social Work and Social Education, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
BMC Res Notes. 2017 Jan 13;10(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2373-7.
The evidence-based practice profile (EBP) questionnaire assesses students' self-reported knowledge, behaviour and attitudes related to evidence-based practice. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt EBP into Norwegian and to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Norwegian version.
EBP was translated and cross-culturally adapted using recommended methodology. Face validity and feasibility were evaluated in a pilot on bachelor students and health and social workers (n = 18). Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel. Nursing students (n = 96), social educator students (n = 27), and health and social workers (n = 26) evaluated the instrument's measurement properties. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Discriminative validity was assessed by independent sample t test. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the structural validity of a five-factor model (Relevance, Sympathy, Terminology, Practice and Confidence) using the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A priori hypotheses on effect sizes and P values were formulated to evaluate the instrument's responsiveness.
The forward-backward translation was repeated three times before arriving at an acceptable version. Eleven of 58 items were re-worded. Face validity and content validity were confirmed. Cronbach's alpha was 0.90 or higher for all domains except Sympathy (0.66). ICC ranged from 0.45 (Practice) to 0.79 (Terminology) and SEM from 0.29 (Relevance) to 0.44 (Practice). There was a significant mean difference between exposure and no exposure to EBP for the domains Relevance, Terminology and Confidence. The CFA did not indicate an acceptable five-factor model fit (CFI = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.09). Responsiveness was as expected or better for all domains except Sympathy.
The cross-culturally adapted EBP-Norwegian version was valid and reliable for the domains Relevance, Terminology and Confidence, and responsive to change for all domains, except Sympathy. Further development of the instrument's items are needed to enhance the instruments reliability for the domains Practice and Sympathy.
循证实践概况（EBP）问卷用于评估学生自我报告的与循证实践相关的知识、行为和态度。本研究的目的是将EBP翻译成挪威语并进行跨文化调适，同时评估挪威语版本的信度、效度和反应度。
采用推荐的方法对EBP进行翻译和跨文化调适。在本科学生以及健康和社会工作人员（n = 18）中进行预试验，以评估表面效度和可行性。由专家小组评估内容效度。护理专业学生（n = 96）、社会教育专业学生（n = 27）以及健康和社会工作人员（n = 26）对该工具的测量特性进行评估。计算Cronbach's α系数以确定内部一致性。使用组内相关系数（ICC）和测量标准误（SEM）评估重测信度。通过独立样本t检验评估区分效度。进行验证性因素分析（CFA），使用比较拟合指数（CFI）和近似均方根误差（RMSEA）评估五因素模型（相关性、同情心、术语、实践和信心）的结构效度。制定关于效应量和P值的先验假设，以评估该工具的反应度。
前后翻译重复进行了三次，才得到一个可接受的版本。58个条目中有11个重新措辞。表面效度和内容效度得到确认。除同情心领域（0.66）外，所有领域的Cronbach's α系数均为0.90或更高。ICC范围从0.45（实践）到0.79（术语），SEM范围从0.29（相关性）到0.44（实践）。在相关性、术语和信心领域，接触EBP与未接触EBP之间存在显著的平均差异。CFA未表明五因素模型拟合可接受（CFI = 0.69，RMSEA = 0.09）。除同情心领域外，所有领域的反应度均符合预期或更好。
跨文化调适后的EBP挪威语版本在相关性、术语和信心领域有效且可靠，除同情心领域外，所有领域对变化均有反应。需要进一步改进该工具的条目，以提高实践和同情心领域的信度。
