Cited by 225Health Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Expanding the Domains of Attitudes Towards Evidence-Based Practice: The Evidence Based Practice Attitude Scale-50

Open access
Aarons, Gregory A., Cafri, Guy, Lugo, Lindsay, Sawitzky, Angelina·2012·Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research

Abstract

Mental health and social service provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice have been measured through the development and validation of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS; Aarons, Ment Health Serv Res 6(2):61-74, 2004). Scores on the EBPAS scales are related to provider demographic characteristics, organizational characteristics, and leadership. However, the EBPAS assesses only four domains of attitudes toward EBP. The current study expands and further identifies additional domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice. A qualitative and quantitative mixed-methods approach was used to: (1) generate items from multiples sources (researcher, mental health program manager, clinician/therapist), (2) identify potential content domains, and (3) examine the preliminary domains and factor structure through exploratory factor analysis. Participants for item generation included the investigative team, a group of mental health program managers (n = 6), and a group of clinicians/therapists (n = 8). For quantitative analyses a sample of 422 mental health service providers from 65 outpatient programs in San Diego County completed a survey that included the new items. Eight new EBPAS factors comprised of 35 items were identified. Factor loadings were moderate to large and internal consistency reliabilities were fair to excellent. We found that the convergence of these factors with the four previously identified evidence-based practice attitude factors (15 items) was small to moderate suggesting that the newly identified factors represent distinct dimensions of mental health and social service provider attitudes toward adopting EBP. Combining the original 15 items with the 35 new items comprises the EBPAS 50-item version (EBPAS-50) that adds to our understanding of provider attitudes toward adopting EBPs. Directions for future research are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10488-010-0302-3

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Abril, R. M. (2007). The dissemination and adoption of knowledge management practices behavioural model. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 131–142.
  2. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusions of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 225

Metadata

Authors
Aarons, G. A., Cafri, G., Lugo, L., & Sawitzky, A.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Aarons, Gregory A.
Venue
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Published
2010-07-07
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
331-340
ISSN
  • 0894-587X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3289
OpenAlex
W2148396898
Cited by
225
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH074678, R01MH072961)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
evidence-based practice, provider attitudes, scale development, factor structure, mental health service providers, social service providers, item generation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Focus Groups, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review