Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale with school-based behavioral health consultants

Cook, Clayton R.; Davis, Chayna; Brown, Eric C.; Locke, Jill; Ehrhart, Mark G.; Aarons, Gregory A.; Larson, Madeline; Lyon, Aaron R.

doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0804-z

Cited by 25 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We used four measures of model t to assess model adequacy for the initial model and revised models: chi-square statistic, the comparative t index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). CFI values greater than 0.95, RMSEA values less than 0.06, and SRMR values less than 0.08 indicate model t that is deemed acceptable [46].…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Sustainment of Prevention Programs and Initiatives: The Sustainment Measurement System Scale

Palinkas

Chou

Spear

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A large knowledge gap exists regarding the measurement of sustainability of evidence-based prevention programs for mental and behavioral health. This paper describes an instrument that is a component of the Sustainment Measurement System (SMS), designed to assess both determinants and outcomes of efforts to sustain prevention programs and initiatives. Methods A 42-item scale was administered to 186 representatives of 145 programs funded by 7 SAMHSA prevention grant initiatives. Scale items were identified from qualitative data collected from 45 representatives of 10 programs and 8 SAMHSA program officers and organized into 9 categories of sustainment determinants and sustainment outcomes. Factor structure identified from principal axis factor analysis and elimination of items with CFA coefficients less than .300 resulted in a 35-item scale with 8 determinant factors and 1 outcome factor. Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis provided support for a 35-item model fit to the data. The SMSS demonstrated good inter-item reliability and all determinant factors were significantly associated with sustainment outcome individual and global measures. Conclusions The SMSS is easy to use and demonstrates good reliability and convergent and discriminant validity in assessing likelihood of sustainment of SAMHSA funded prevention programs and initiatives upon termination of original funding. The measure demonstrates potential in identifying predictors of program sustainment and as a tool for enhancing the likelihood of successful sustainment through ongoing evaluation and feedback.

show abstract

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Sustainment of Prevention Programs and Initiatives: The Sustainment Measurement System Scale

Palinkas

Chou

Spear

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aim of the CFA was to determine if the data t the hypothesized model of sustainability determinants and sustainment outcomes based on the qualitative research conducted in earlier study described above [41,45]. CFA is commonly used to con rm a hypothesized model based on theory or prior empirical research, as well as evaluate the reliability and validity of measures employed in implementation research [15,17,18,[46][47][48].…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Sustainment of Prevention Programs and Initiatives: The Sustainment Measurement System Scale

Palinkas

Chou

Spear

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Enhancing the sustainability of evidence-based prevention programs for mental and behavioral health requires tools for measuring both sustainability determinants and sustainment outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop the Sustainment Measurement System Scale (SMSS) and to assess its reliability and construct validity for measuring both determinants and outcomes of efforts to sustain prevention programs and initiatives. Methods: A 42-item scale comprised of items identified from qualitative data collected from 45 representatives of 10 programs and 8 SAMHSA program officers was administered to 186 representatives of 145 programs funded by 7 SAMHSA prevention grant initiatives. Cronbach’s alphas were used to determine inter-item reliability. Convergent validity was assessed by comparisons of a global measure of sustainment with current SAMHSA-funding status and continued operation in the same form. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparisons of sustainability determinants with whether or not the program had undergone adaptations. Results: Confirmatory Factor Analysis provided support for a 35-item model fit to the data. Cronbach’s alpha was .84 for the sustainment outcome construct and ranged from .70 to .93 for the sustainability determinants constructs. All of the determinant constructs were significantly associated with sustainment outcome individual and global measures for the entire sample (p < 0.01 to 0.001) and for community-based programs and programs with a substance abuse focus (p < 0.05 to 0.001). Convergent validity was supported by significant associations between the global sustainment measure and current SAMHSA funding status and continued operation in the same form (p < 0.001). Four of the sustainability determinant constructs (responsive to community needs; coalitions, partnerships and networks; organizational staff capability; and evaluation, feedback and program outcomes) were also significantly associated with current SAMHSA funding status (p < 0.5 to 0.01). With the exception of organizational staff capability, all sustainability determinants were unrelated to program adaptation as predicted. Conclusions: The SMSS demonstrated good reliability and convergent and discriminant validity in assessing likelihood of sustainment of SAMHSA funded prevention programs and initiatives. The measure demonstrates potential in identifying predictors of program sustainment and as a tool for enhancing the likelihood of successful sustainment through ongoing evaluation and feedback.

show abstract

“…The EBPAS has been translated into different languages and cross-validated in various settings, however a Swedish version has not yet been validated [30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. The present study aimed to help fill this gap in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in a large and representative Swedish sample: is the use of the total scale and subscale scores justified?

Santesson

Bäckström

Holmberg

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a call for valid and reliable instruments to evaluate implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP). The 15-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) measures attitude toward EBP, incorporating four lower-order factor subscales (Appeal, Requirements, Openness, and Divergence) and a Total scale (General Attitudes). It is one of a few measures of EBP attitudes evaluated for its psychometric properties. The reliability of the Total scale has been repeatedly supported, but also the multidimensionality of the inventory. However, whether all of the items contribute to the EBPAS Total beyond their subscales has yet to be demonstrated. In addition, the Divergence subscale has been questioned because of its low correlation with the other subscales and low inter-item correlations. The EBPAS is widely used to tailor and evaluate implementation efforts, but a Swedish version has not yet been validated. This study aimed to contribute to the development and cross-validation of the EBPAS by examining the factor structure of t a Swedish-language version in a large sample of mental health professionals. Methods The EBPAS was translated into Swedish and completed by 570 mental health professionals working in child and adolescent psychiatry settings spread across Sweden. The factor structure was examined using first-order, second-order and bifactor confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models. Results Results suggested adequate fit for all CFA models. The EBPAS Total was strongly supported in the Swedish version. Support for the hierarchical second-order model was also strong, while the bifactor model gave mixed support for the subscales. The Openness and Requirements subscales came out best, while there were problems with both the Appeal (e.g. not different from the General Attitudes factor) and the Divergence subscales (e.g. low reliability). Conclusions Overall, the psychometric properties were on par with the English version and the total score appears to be a valid measure of general attitudes towards EBP. This is the first study supporting this General Attitudes factor based on a bifactor model. Although comparatively better supported in this Swedish sample, we conclude that the use of the EBPAS subscale scores may result in misleading conclusions. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.

show abstract

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale with school-based behavioral health consultants

Cited by 25 publications

References 43 publications

Measurement of Sustainment of Prevention Programs and Initiatives: The Sustainment Measurement System Scale

Measurement of Sustainment of Prevention Programs and Initiatives: The Sustainment Measurement System Scale

Measurement of Sustainment of Prevention Programs and Initiatives: The Sustainment Measurement System Scale

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in a large and representative Swedish sample: is the use of the total scale and subscale scores justified?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About