Adaptation and validation of the Evidence‐Based Practice Belief and Implementation scales for French‐speaking Swiss nurses and allied healthcare providers. Issue 17 (18th April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Verloo, Henk; Desmedt, Mario; Morin, Diane
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical nursing. Volume 26:Issue 17/18(2017)
• Page Start: 2735
• Page End: 2743
• Publication Date: 2017-04-18
• Subjects: allied healthcare providers -- EBP beliefs -- EBP implementation -- evidence‐based practice -- nurses -- psychometric evaluation; Nursing -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 610.7305
• DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13786
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0962-1067

Abstract

Abstract : Aims and objectives: To evaluate two psychometric properties of the French versions of the Evidence‐Based Practice Beliefs and Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation scales, namely their internal consistency and construct validity. Background: The Evidence‐Based Practice Beliefs and Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation scales developed by Melnyk et al. are recognised as valid, reliable instruments in English. However, no psychometric validation for their French versions existed. Design: Secondary analysis of a cross sectional survey. Methods: Source data came from a cross‐sectional descriptive study sample of 382 nurses and other allied healthcare providers. Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate internal consistency, and principal axis factor analysis and varimax rotation were computed to determine construct validity. Results: The French Evidence‐Based Practice Beliefs and Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation scales showed excellent reliability, with Cronbach's alphas close to the scores established by Melnyk et al.'s original versions. Principal axis factor analysis showed medium‐to‐high factor loading scores without obtaining collinearity. Principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation of the 16‐item Evidence‐Based Practice Beliefs scale resulted in a four‐factor loading structure. Principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation of the 17‐item Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation scale revealed a two‐factor loading structure. Further research should attempt to understand why the French Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation scale showed a two‐factor loading structure but Melnyk et al.'s original has only one. Conclusion: The French versions of the Evidence‐Based Practice Beliefs and Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation scales can both be considered valid and reliable instruments for measuring Evidence‐Based Practice beliefs and implementation. Relevance to clinical practice: The results suggest that the French Evidence‐Based Practice Beliefs and Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation scales are valid and reliable and can therefore be used to evaluate the effectiveness of organisational strategies aimed at increasing professionals' confidence in Evidence‐Based Practice, supporting its use and implementation.