Nurses' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice: Translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch scales

IF 3.1 Q1 NURSING
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 ,&nbsp;Michael Echteld ,&nbsp;Cindy de Bot ,&nbsp;Annemarie de Vos ,&nbsp;Derya Demirçay ,&nbsp;Mary-Anne Ramis ,&nbsp;Lidwine Mokkink ,&nbsp;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.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
81 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信