The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For the English version Cronbach's Alpha is reported to range between α = 0.60 and α = 0.90 for the used subscales (80).”
From Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of PSYCHOnlineTHERAPY: Study Protocol of a Multicenter Blended Outpatient Psychotherapy Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial for Patients With Depressive and Anxiety Disorders (2021) · cites this paper as [80]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 · Cited by 8,721
Self-citationDiffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 · Cited by 5,304
The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections
Ajzen, I. (2011) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.613995 · Cited by 4,846
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x · Cited by 3,322
Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors
Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7 · Cited by 3,240 · cited 2×
“Moreover, the implementation process encompasses different phases involving complex multilevel challenges, such as the exploration, the preparation, the implementation, and the sustainment phase characterized by the Exploration Preparation Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) implementation framework [10].”
Background(2003) · Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) · Cited by 2,976
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Psykologforening N. Prinsipperklæring om evidensbasert psykologisk praksis. Tidsskrift Nor Psykologforening. 2007;9:1127–8.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fishman, J., Yang, C. F., & Mandell, D. S. (2021) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01153-9 · Cited by 137
Fishman, J., Lushin, V., & Mandell, D. S. (2020) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-020-00050-4 · Cited by 115
Toward the data-driven dissemination of findings from psychological science.
Purtle, J., Marzalik, J. S., Halfond, R. W., Bufka, L. F., Teachman, B. A., & Aarons, G. A. (2020) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000721 · Cited by 66
Rye, M., Friborg, O., & Skre, I. (2019) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-019-3933-4 · Cited by 45
James, S., Lampe, L., Behnken, S., & Schulz, D. A. (2018) · European Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1080/13691457.2018.1469475 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC5379724
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
