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?

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Oct 14;20(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01126-4.

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, second-order 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).

Conclusions: Overall, the psychometric properties were on par with the English version and the total score appears to be a valid measure of general attitudes towards EBP. This is the first study supporting this General Attitudes factor based on a bifactor model. Although comparatively better supported in this Swedish sample, we conclude that the use of the EBPAS subscale scores may result in misleading conclusions. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.

Keywords: Attitudes; Bifactor model; Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); EBP; Evidence-based practice attitude scale (EBPAS); Implementation; Psychometric evaluation; Psychometric properties; Validation.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Attitude of Health Personnel*
  • Child
  • Evidence-Based Practice
  • Factor Analysis, Statistical
  • Humans
  • Language*
  • Psychometrics
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Sweden