对美国创伤治疗提供者样本的循证实践态度量表-36 (EBPAS-36)的再检验。

Joshua P Mersky, ChienTi Plummer Lee, Edwin Bacalso, Xiyao Liu
{"title":"对美国创伤治疗提供者样本的循证实践态度量表-36 (EBPAS-36)的再检验。","authors":"Joshua P Mersky, ChienTi Plummer Lee, Edwin Bacalso, Xiyao Liu","doi":"10.1186/s43058-025-00702-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mental health providers' attitudes toward evidence-based practice are likely to influence what interventions they learn, implement, and sustain over time. A 36-item version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was recently developed to assess provider attitudes in 12 domains. Research suggests the EBPAS-36 is a promising tool, though inconsistencies across studies signal the need to reexamine its validity and reliability along with the correlates of provider attitudes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study assessed the factorial structure of the EBPAS-36, the intercorrelations and reliabilities of its subscales, and correlates of practice attitudes in a U.S. sample of 445 practitioners who received training in trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) verified that the EBPAS-36 fits a 12-factor model representing each of its subscales. Reinforcing prior results, the subscales of the EBPAS-36 were weakly to moderately correlated, indicating that the 12 domains are related yet distinct. A hypothesized second-order CFA model with three overarching latent factors was not validated, but an alternative second-order model with two factors fit the data adequately. Most subscales demonstrated good-to-excellent internal consistency, though values for certain subscales ranged from marginally acceptable to poor. Provider attitudes varied by gender, professional experience, and discipline. Practitioners who more frequently assessed client trauma symptoms reported more positive EBP attitudes, and those who expressed greater concerns that trauma assessments may cause harm reported more negative attitudes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Taken together with previous findings, the results show the EBPAS-36 performs well overall, though some subscales may benefit from refinement. Further validation tests of the EBPAS-36 in diverse samples are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"6 1","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016081/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reexamining the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36) in a U.S. sample of trauma-focused treatment providers.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua P Mersky, ChienTi Plummer Lee, Edwin Bacalso, Xiyao Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43058-025-00702-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mental health providers' attitudes toward evidence-based practice are likely to influence what interventions they learn, implement, and sustain over time. A 36-item version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was recently developed to assess provider attitudes in 12 domains. Research suggests the EBPAS-36 is a promising tool, though inconsistencies across studies signal the need to reexamine its validity and reliability along with the correlates of provider attitudes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study assessed the factorial structure of the EBPAS-36, the intercorrelations and reliabilities of its subscales, and correlates of practice attitudes in a U.S. sample of 445 practitioners who received training in trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) verified that the EBPAS-36 fits a 12-factor model representing each of its subscales. Reinforcing prior results, the subscales of the EBPAS-36 were weakly to moderately correlated, indicating that the 12 domains are related yet distinct. A hypothesized second-order CFA model with three overarching latent factors was not validated, but an alternative second-order model with two factors fit the data adequately. Most subscales demonstrated good-to-excellent internal consistency, though values for certain subscales ranged from marginally acceptable to poor. Provider attitudes varied by gender, professional experience, and discipline. Practitioners who more frequently assessed client trauma symptoms reported more positive EBP attitudes, and those who expressed greater concerns that trauma assessments may cause harm reported more negative attitudes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Taken together with previous findings, the results show the EBPAS-36 performs well overall, though some subscales may benefit from refinement. Further validation tests of the EBPAS-36 in diverse samples are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation science communications\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016081/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation science communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00702-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00702-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着时间的推移,心理健康提供者对循证实践的态度可能会影响他们学习、实施和维持的干预措施。最近开发了36项基于证据的实践态度量表(EBPAS),以评估提供者在12个领域的态度。研究表明EBPAS-36是一个很有前途的工具,尽管研究之间的不一致性表明需要重新检查其有效性和可靠性以及提供者态度的相关性。方法:本研究评估了美国445名接受创伤认知行为治疗培训的从业人员的EBPAS-36的因子结构,其分量表的相互相关性和可靠性,以及实践态度的相关性。结果:验证性因子分析(CFA)证实EBPAS-36符合代表其每个子量表的12因子模型。强化先前的结果,EBPAS-36的子量表呈弱至中度相关,表明12个结构域相关但又不同。一个假设的二阶CFA模型有三个总体潜在因素没有得到验证,但一个替代的二阶模型有两个因素充分拟合数据。大多数子量表表现出良好到优秀的内部一致性,尽管某些子量表的值从勉强接受到差。提供者的态度因性别、专业经验和学科而异。更频繁地评估来访者创伤症状的从业人员报告了更多积极的EBP态度,而那些表示更担心创伤评估可能造成伤害的从业人员报告了更多消极的态度。结论:结合先前的研究结果,结果显示EBPAS-36总体上表现良好,尽管一些子量表可能会从改进中受益。EBPAS-36在不同样品中的进一步验证试验是有必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reexamining the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36) in a U.S. sample of trauma-focused treatment providers.

Background: Mental health providers' attitudes toward evidence-based practice are likely to influence what interventions they learn, implement, and sustain over time. A 36-item version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was recently developed to assess provider attitudes in 12 domains. Research suggests the EBPAS-36 is a promising tool, though inconsistencies across studies signal the need to reexamine its validity and reliability along with the correlates of provider attitudes.

Methods: This study assessed the factorial structure of the EBPAS-36, the intercorrelations and reliabilities of its subscales, and correlates of practice attitudes in a U.S. sample of 445 practitioners who received training in trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy.

Results: A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) verified that the EBPAS-36 fits a 12-factor model representing each of its subscales. Reinforcing prior results, the subscales of the EBPAS-36 were weakly to moderately correlated, indicating that the 12 domains are related yet distinct. A hypothesized second-order CFA model with three overarching latent factors was not validated, but an alternative second-order model with two factors fit the data adequately. Most subscales demonstrated good-to-excellent internal consistency, though values for certain subscales ranged from marginally acceptable to poor. Provider attitudes varied by gender, professional experience, and discipline. Practitioners who more frequently assessed client trauma symptoms reported more positive EBP attitudes, and those who expressed greater concerns that trauma assessments may cause harm reported more negative attitudes.

Conclusions: Taken together with previous findings, the results show the EBPAS-36 performs well overall, though some subscales may benefit from refinement. Further validation tests of the EBPAS-36 in diverse samples are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信