Abstract
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. To describe the translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP Scales. The scales were translated forward and backward, piloted for comprehensibility and completeness and then administered among Dutch nurses and nursing students. 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. 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. 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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call