Adaptation and validation of the Evidence‐Based Practice Belief and Implementation scales for French‐speaking Swiss nurses and allied healthcare providers
Bibliographic record
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".