Cited by 133Health Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The Evidence-based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36): a brief and pragmatic measure of attitudes to evidence-based practice validated in US and Norwegian samples

Open access
Rye, Marte, Torres, Elisa M., Friborg, Oddgeir, Skre, Ingunn, Aarons, Gregory A.·2017·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Short and valid instruments for measuring factors facilitating or hindering implementation efforts are called for. This article describes (1) the adaptation of a shorter version of the Evidence-based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS-50 items), and (2) the psychometric properties of the shortened version in both US and Norwegian data. METHODS: The US participants were mental health service providers (N = 418) recruited from clinics providing mental health services in San Diego County, California. The Norwegian participants were psychologists, psychiatric nurses, and psychology students (N = 838) recruited from the Norwegian Psychological Association and the Norwegian Nurses Organization. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach was used. RESULTS: .047-.056, SRMR = .07). Incremental model fit was fair in the US (CFI = .93, TLI = .91) and in the Norwegian samples (CFI = .91, TLI = .89). The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) in the US and the Norwegian samples were good for the total EBPAS-36 score (.79 and .86, respectively) and were ranged from adequate to excellent for the subscales (US .60-.91 and Norway .61-.92). CONCLUSIONS: The EBPAS-36 has adequate psychometric properties both in US and Norwegian samples, hence indicating cross-cultural validity. It is a brief, pragmatic, and more user-friendly instrument than the EBPAS-50, yet maintains a broad scope by retaining the original 12 measurement domains.

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 · 10.1186/s13012-017-0573-0

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rye, M., Torres, E. M., Friborg, O., Skre, I., & Aarons, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of North Norway (NO)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
Corresponding author
Rye, Marte
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2017-04-04
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
44-44
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2604717953
Cited by
133
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6
FWCI
11.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K01MH001695, R01MH072961, R01MH092950)
  • The publication fund at the University of Tromsø (IN-1096130)
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, attitudes toward evidence-based practice, scale shortening, psychometric validation, cross-cultural validity, mental health service providers, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, psychology students, implementation barriers and facilitators
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, California, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Norway, Nurses, Psychology, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Reproducibility of Results, Evidence-Based Practice, Young Adult

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