Validation of the Evidence-Based Practice Confidence (EPIC) Scale With Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the reliability, minimal detectable change (MDC), and construct validity of the Evidence-Based Practice Confidence (EPIC) scale among occupational therapists. METHOD: In a cross-sectional mail survey, 126 occupational therapists completed the EPIC scale and a questionnaire to provide data for validity testing. Seventy-nine occupational therapists (63%) completed a second EPIC scale a median of 24 days later. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was .92 (95% confidence interval [.88, .95]). The MDC values at the 90% and 95% confidence levels were 3.9 percentage points and 4.6 percentage points, respectively. The total EPIC score was significantly associated with holding a master's or doctoral degree; education in evidence-based practice (EBP); higher EBP knowledge and skill; and frequently searching, reading, and using research findings in clinical decision making (p < .05). CONCLUSION: The EPIC scale has excellent reliability and acceptable construct validity for use in evaluating EBP self-efficacy among occupational therapists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".