Peter Hoegen , Michael Echteld , Cindy de Bot , Annemarie de Vos , Derya Demirçay , Mary-Anne Ramis , Lidwine Mokkink , Hester Vermeulen
{"title":"Nurses' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice: Translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch scales","authors":"Peter Hoegen , Michael Echteld , Cindy de Bot , Annemarie de Vos , Derya Demirçay , Mary-Anne Ramis , Lidwine Mokkink , Hester Vermeulen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Evidence-based practice (EBP) is crucial for appropriate, effective, and affordable care. Despite EBP education, barriers like low self-efficacy and outcome expectancy limit nurses’ engagement in EBP. Reliable scales are essential to evaluate interventions aimed at improving self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in EBP. The English Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP scales are psychometrically sound.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To describe the translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP Scales.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>The scales were translated forward and backward, piloted for comprehensibility and completeness and then administered among Dutch nurses and nursing students.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Pilot testing confirmed comprehensibility, completeness, and relevance of the items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (<em>n</em> = 769) tested a second-order model for the Self-efficacy scale (Comparative Fit Index (CFI)=0.96, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)=0.06, Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR)=0.04) and a single-factor model for the Outcome Expectancy Scale (CFI=0.99, TLI=0.99, RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.01). Chi-squared tests remained significant. Hypothesis testing confirmed construct validity of the Self-efficacy (<em>r</em> = 0.77) and Outcome Expectancy Scale (<em>r</em> = 0.74). Both scales exhibited high internal consistency with McDonald's Omega and Cronbach's Alpha values above 0.95.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Both scales exhibit theoretical soundness and positive fit indices. Significant chi-square tests and high correlations between weighted and unweighted scores support using unweighted scores over utilizing the estimated model to calculate weighted scores.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP Scales are good. Future research should prioritize responsiveness and test-retest reliability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34476,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100286"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11762229/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X24001139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is crucial for appropriate, effective, and affordable care. Despite EBP education, barriers like low self-efficacy and outcome expectancy limit nurses’ engagement in EBP. Reliable scales are essential to evaluate interventions aimed at improving self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in EBP. The English Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP scales are psychometrically sound.
Objectives
To describe the translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP Scales.
Method
The scales were translated forward and backward, piloted for comprehensibility and completeness and then administered among Dutch nurses and nursing students.
Results
Pilot testing confirmed comprehensibility, completeness, and relevance of the items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (n = 769) tested a second-order model for the Self-efficacy scale (Comparative Fit Index (CFI)=0.96, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)=0.06, Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR)=0.04) and a single-factor model for the Outcome Expectancy Scale (CFI=0.99, TLI=0.99, RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.01). Chi-squared tests remained significant. Hypothesis testing confirmed construct validity of the Self-efficacy (r = 0.77) and Outcome Expectancy Scale (r = 0.74). Both scales exhibited high internal consistency with McDonald's Omega and Cronbach's Alpha values above 0.95.
Discussion
Both scales exhibit theoretical soundness and positive fit indices. Significant chi-square tests and high correlations between weighted and unweighted scores support using unweighted scores over utilizing the estimated model to calculate weighted scores.
Conclusions
Construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP Scales are good. Future research should prioritize responsiveness and test-retest reliability.