Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS)

Health Research Policy and Systems

Bea G. Tiemens³  Gregory A. Aarons⁴  Marloes Kleinjan¹  Jan W. Veerman²  Giel J. M. Hutschemaekers³  Maartje A. M. S. van Sonsbeek³ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology, Trimbos Institute, Da Costakade 45, Utrecht, 3521 VS, The Netherlands;Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, Nijmegen, 6525 HR, The Netherlands;Pro Persona Centre for Education & Science (ProCES), Postbus 27, Renkum, 6870 AA, The Netherlands;Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, 3020 Children’s Way, San Diego 92123, CA, USA

关键词: Youth care;    Professionals;    Evidence-based practice;    EBPAS;    Attitude;   

Others  :  1233256
DOI  :  10.1186/s12961-015-0058-z

 received in 2015-02-20, accepted in 2015-11-01,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was developed in the United States to assess attitudes of mental health and welfare professionals toward evidence-based interventions. Although the EBPAS has been translated in different languages and is being used in several countries, all research on the psychometric properties of the EBPAS within youth care has been carried out in the United States. The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the EBPAS.

Methods

After translation into Dutch, the Dutch version of the EBPAS was examined in a diverse sample of 270 youth care professionals working in five institutions in the Netherlands. We examined the factor structure with both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and the internal consistency reliability. We also conducted multiple linear regression analyses to examine the association of EBPAS scores with professionals’ characteristics. It was hypothesized that responses to the EBPAS items could be explained by one general factor plus four specific factors, good to excellent internal consistency reliability would be found, and EBPAS scores would vary by age, sex, and educational level.

Results

The exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution according to the hypothesized dimensions: Requirements, Appeal, Openness, and Divergence. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.67 to 0.89, and the overall scale alpha was 0.72. The confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the factor structure and suggested that the lower order EBPAS factors are indicators of a higher order construct. However, Divergence was not significantly correlated with any of the subscales or the total score. The confirmatory bifactor analysis endorsed that variance was explained both by a general attitude towards evidence-based interventions and by four specific factors. The regression analyses showed an association between EBPAS scores and youth care professionals’ age, sex, and educational level.

Conclusions

The present study provides strong support for a structure with a general factor plus four specific factors and internal consistency reliability of the Dutch version of the EBPAS in a diverse sample of youth care professionals. Hence, the factor structure and reliability of the original version of the EBPAS seem generalizable to the Dutch version of the EBPAS.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 van Sonsbeek et al.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Aarons GA, Cafri G, Lugo L, Sawitzky A. Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: the evidence based practice attitude scale-50. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2012; 39(5):331-40.
• [2]Evidence-based practice in psychology. Am Psychol. 2006; 61(4):271-85.
• [3]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Br Med J. 1996; 312(7023):71-2.
• [4]Barnoski R. Outcome evaluation of Washington State’s research-based programs for juvenile offenders. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA; 2004.
• [5]Aarons GA, Glisson C, Green PD, Hoagwood K, Kelleher KJ, Landsverk JA 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. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Bickman L. A measurement feedback system (MFS) is necessary to improve mental health outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008; 47(10):1114-9.
• [7]Bickman L, Kelley SD, Breda C, de Andrade AR, Riemer M. Effects of routine feedback to clinicians on mental health outcomes of youths: results of a randomized trial. Psychiat Serv. 2011; 62(12):1423-9.
• [8]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004; 82(4):581-629.
• [9]Glisson C, Schoenwald SK. The ARC organizational and community intervention strategy for implementing evidence-based children’s mental health treatments. Ment Health Serv Res. 2005; 7(4):243-59.
• [10]Raghavan R, Bright CL, Shadoin AL. Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implement Sci. 2008; 3:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manage J. 1991; 34(3):555-90.
• [12]Frambach RT, Schillewaert N. Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. J Bus Res. 2002; 55(2):163-76.
• [13]Fishbein M, Hennessy M, Yzer M, Douglas J. Can we explain why some people do and some people do not act on their intentions? Psychol Health Med. 2003; 8(1):3-18.
• [14]Henggeler SW, Chapman JE, Rowland MD, Halliday-Boykins CA, Randall J, Shackelford J et al.. Statewide adoption and initial implementation of contingency management for substance-abusing adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008; 76(4):556-67.
• [15]Olson JM, Stone J. The influence of behavior on attitudes. In: The handbook of attitudes. Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP, editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ; 2005: p.223-71.
• [16]Aarons GA, Glisson C, Hoagwood K, Kelleher K, Landsverk J, Cafri G. Psychometric properties and U.S. National norms of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Psychol Assess. 2010; 22(2):356-65.
• [17]Aarons GA, McDonald EJ, Sheehan AK, Walrath-Greene CM. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale in a geographically diverse sample of community mental health providers. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2007; 34(5):465-9.
• [18]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.
• [19]McColl A, Smith H, White P, Field J. General practitioners’ perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. Brit Med J. 1998; 316(7128):361-5.
• [20]Rubin A, Parrish DE. Validation of the Evidence-Based Practice Process Assessment Scale. Res Soc Work Pract. 2011; 21(1):106-18.
• [21]Melas CD, Zampetakis LA, Dimopoulou A, Moustakis V. Evaluating the properties of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in health care. Psychol Assess. 2012; 24(4):867-76.
• [22]Wolf DAPS, Dulmus CN, Maguin E, Fava N. Refining the evidence-based practice attitude scale: an alternative confirmatory factor analysis. Soc Work Res. 2014; 38(1):47-58.
• [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.
• [24]Aarons GA. Transformational and transactional leadership: association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychiat Serv. 2006; 57(8):1162-9.
• [25]Smith BD, Manfredo IT. Frontline counselors in organizational contexts: a study of treatment practices in community settings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011; 41(2):124-36.
• [26]Beidas RS, Marcus S, Aarons GA, Hoagwood KE, Schoenwald S, Evans AC, et al. Individual and organizational predictors of community therapists’ use of evidence-based practices in a large public mental health system. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015. Ahead of print.
• [27]Lopez MA, Osterberg LD, Jensen-Doss A, Rae WA. Effects of workshop training for providers under mandated use of an evidence-based practice. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011; 38(4):301-12.
• [28]Gioia D. Using an organizational change model to qualitatively understand practitioner adoption of evidence-based practice in community mental health. Best Pract Ment Health. 2007; 3(1):1-15.
• [29]Stahmer AC, Aarons G. 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.
• [30]Nakamura BJ, Higa-McMillan CK, Okamura KH, Shimabukuro S. Knowledge of and attitudes towards evidence-based practices in community child mental health practitioners. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011; 38(4):287-300.
• [31]Gray MJ, Elhai JD, Schmidt LO. Trauma professionals’ attitudes toward and utilization of evidence-based practices. Behav Modif. 2007; 31(6):732-48.
• [32]Aarons GA, Green A, Miller E. Researching readiness for implementation of evidence-based practice: a comprehensive review of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Cambridge handbook of implementation science for psychology in education: how to promote evidence based practice. Kelly B, Perkins D, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2012.
• [33]Sareen J, Jagdeo A, Cox B, Clara I, ten Have M, Belik S-L et al.. Perceived barriers to mental health service utilization in the United States, Ontario, and the Netherlands. Psychiat Serv. 2007; 58(3):357-64.
• [34]NetQuestionnaires, Version 6.5. NETQ Insights B.V., Released, Amsterdam; 2002.
• [35]IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY; 2011.
• [36]Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012
• [37]Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999; 4(3):272.
• [38]Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York; 1994.
• [39]Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston; 2007.
• [40]Kuntsche E, Jordan MD. Adolescent alcohol and cannabis use in relation to peer and school factors. Results of multilevel analyses. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006; 84(2):167-74.
• [41]Holzinger KJ, Swineford F. The bi-factor method. Psychometrika. 1937; 2(1):41-54.
• [42]Chen FF, Hayes A, Carver CS, Laurenceau JP, Zhang Z. Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: a comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. J Pers. 2012; 80(1):219-51.
• [43]Hu L-t, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6(1):1-55.
• [44]Reise SP, Moore TM, Haviland MG. Bifactor models and rotations: exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. J Pers Assess. 2010; 92:544-59.
• [45]Lauteslager M. Wetenschap, akkoord, maar welke wetenschap? Het EBP-debat dat maar geen debat wil worden. Tijdschr Psychother. 2011; 37(4):276-93.
• [46]Lauteslager M. Wetenschap, akkoord, maar welke wetenschap? Psychotherapie als bouwpakket of trukendoos. Tijdschr Psychother. 2011; 37(5):350-66.
• [47]Stewart RE, Chambless DL. Does psychotherapy research inform treatment decisions in private practice? J Clin Psychol. 2007; 63(3):267-81.
• [48]van der Zwet RJM, Beneken genaamd Kolmer DM, Schalk R. Social workers’ orientation toward the evidence-based practice process: a Dutch survey. Research on Social Work Practice. 2014. doi:10.1177/1049731514540340