IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0177172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) for measuring transprofessional evidence-based practice: Creation, development and psychometric validation

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez
  • Joan Ernest de Pedro-Gómez
  • José Miguel Morales-Asencio
  • Miquel Bennasar-Veny
  • Pedro Sastre-Fullana
  • Albert Sesé-Abad

Abstract

Introduction: Most of the EBP measuring instruments available to date present limitations both in the operationalisation of the construct and also in the rigour of their psychometric development, as revealed in the literature review performed. The aim of this paper is to provide rigorous and adequate reliability and validity evidence of the scores of a new transdisciplinary psychometric tool, the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice (HS-EBP), for measuring the construct EBP in Health Sciences professionals. Methods: A pilot study and a subsequent two-stage validation test sample were conducted to progressively refine the instrument until a reduced 60-item version with a five-factor latent structure. Reliability was analysed through both Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and intraclass correlations (ICC). Latent structure was contrasted using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) following a model comparison aproach. Evidence of criterion validity of the scores obtained was achieved by considering attitudinal resistance to change, burnout, and quality of professional life as criterion variables; while convergent validity was assessed using the Spanish version of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ-19). Results: Adequate evidence of both reliability and ICC was obtained for the five dimensions of the questionnaire. According to the CFA model comparison, the best fit corresponded to the five-factor model (RMSEA = 0.049; CI 90% RMSEA = [0.047; 0.050]; CFI = 0.99). Adequate criterion and convergent validity evidence was also provided. Finally, the HS-EBP showed the capability to find differences between EBP training levels as an important evidence of decision validity. Conclusions: Reliability and validity evidence obtained regarding the HS-EBP confirm the adequate operationalisation of the EBP construct as a process put into practice to respond to every clinical situation arising in the daily practice of professionals in health sciences (transprofessional). The tool could be useful for EBP individual assessment and for evaluating the impact of specific interventions to improve EBP.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez & Joan Ernest de Pedro-Gómez & José Miguel Morales-Asencio & Miquel Bennasar-Veny & Pedro Sastre-Fullana & Albert Sesé-Abad, 2017. "Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) for measuring transprofessional evidence-based practice: Creation, development and psychometric validation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177172
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177172
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177172&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0177172?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.