Department of Rehabilitation Science and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Science, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Health and Functioning, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Aug 6;24(1):841. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05842-z.
Access to valid and reliable instruments is essential in the field of implementation science, where the measurement of factors associated with healthcare professionals' uptake of EBP is central. The Norwegian version of the Evidence-based practice profile questionnaire (EBP-N) measures EBP constructs, such as EBP knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and behavior. Despite its potential utility, the EBP-N requires further validation before being used in a cross-sectional survey targeting different healthcare professionals in Norwegian primary healthcare. This study assessed the content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency of the EBP-N among Norwegian primary healthcare professionals.
To evaluate the content validity of the EBP-N, we conducted qualitative individual interviews with eight healthcare professionals in primary healthcare from different disciplines. Qualitative data was analyzed using the "text summary" model, followed by panel group discussions, minor linguistic changes, and a pilot test of the revised version. To evaluate construct validity (structural validity) and internal consistency, we used data from a web-based cross-sectional survey among nurses, assistant nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, medical doctors, and other professionals (n = 313). Structural validity was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the original five-factor structure, and Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess internal consistency.
The qualitative interviews with primary healthcare professionals indicated that the content of the EBP-N was perceived to reflect the constructs intended to be measured by the instrument. However, interviews revealed concerns regarding the formulation of some items, leading to minor linguistic revisions. In addition, several participants expressed that some of the most specific research terms in the terminology domain felt less relevant to them in clinical practice. CFA results exposed partial alignment with the original five-factor model, with the following model fit indices: CFI = 0.749, RMSEA = 0.074, and SRMR = 0.075. Cronbach's alphas ranged between 0.82 and 0.95 for all domains except for the Sympathy domain (0.69), indicating good internal consistency in four out of five domains.
The EBP-N is a suitable instrument for measuring Norwegian primary healthcare professionals' EBP knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and behavior. Although EBP-N seems to be an adequate instrument in its current form, we recommend that future research focuses on further assessing the factor structure, evaluating the relevance of the items, and the number of items needed.
Retrospectively registered (prior to data analysis) in OSF Preregistration. Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/428RP .
在实施科学领域，获取有效和可靠的工具至关重要，而衡量与医疗保健专业人员采用 EBP 相关的因素则是该领域的核心。证据基础实践概况问卷（EBP-N）的挪威版本可衡量 EBP 结构，如 EBP 知识、信心、态度和行为。尽管具有潜在的效用，但 EBP-N 在挪威初级保健中针对不同医疗保健专业人员进行横断面调查之前，仍需要进一步验证。本研究评估了 EBP-N 在挪威初级保健专业人员中的内容效度、结构效度和内部一致性。
为了评估 EBP-N 的内容效度，我们对来自不同学科的 8 名初级保健医疗保健专业人员进行了定性的个体访谈。使用“文本摘要”模型分析定性数据，然后进行小组讨论、进行细微的语言更改，并对修订版进行试点测试。为了评估结构效度（结构效度）和内部一致性，我们使用了一项基于网络的横断面调查中护士、助理护士、物理治疗师、职业治疗师、医生和其他专业人员（n=313）的数据。使用原始五因素结构的验证性因素分析（CFA）测试结构效度，并计算 Cronbach's alpha 以评估内部一致性。
与初级保健专业人员的定性访谈表明，EBP-N 的内容被认为反映了仪器旨在衡量的结构。然而，访谈揭示了一些项目的表述存在问题，导致了细微的语言修改。此外，一些参与者表示，术语领域中一些最具体的研究术语在临床实践中对他们的相关性较低。CFA 结果显示与原始五因素模型存在部分一致性，以下模型拟合指数：CFI=0.749、RMSEA=0.074 和 SRMR=0.075。所有领域的 Cronbach's alpha 均在 0.82 到 0.95 之间，除了同情领域（0.69）之外，表明除了同情领域之外，五个领域中的四个领域具有良好的内部一致性。
EBP-N 是一种适合衡量挪威初级保健专业人员 EBP 知识、态度、信心和行为的工具。尽管 EBP-N 在当前形式下似乎是一种合适的工具，但我们建议未来的研究重点是进一步评估因素结构、评估项目的相关性以及所需项目的数量。
在 OSF 预先注册中进行回顾性注册（在数据分析之前）。注册 DOI：https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/428RP。
