Survey Instruments for Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Behaviour Related to Evidence‐based Practice in Occupational Therapy: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate, through a systematic review, assessment instruments for evidence-based practice (EBP). The specific objectives were to (1) identify survey instruments testing EBP knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour; (2) determine the attributes measured by each instrument; (3) evaluate the psychometric properties of the instruments; and (4) evaluate the methodological quality of the instruments. Using the Cochrane approach, searches were conducted in Pubmed, EBSCOHost and Scopus from inception to February 2014. Papers were screened by two independent assessors, and data were extracted by one researcher. Forty papers reporting 34 instruments met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most instruments measured EBP behaviour (n = 33) and attitudes (n = 21). This review provides a single source of information to enable researchers to select the most robust descriptive instruments to measure EBP learner attributes. Instruments used only with occupational therapists may have resulted in some instruments being missed. For further research, it is recommended that attention is given to developing objective instruments with a focus on knowledge and skills. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) for measuring transprofessional evidence-based practice: Creation, development and psychometric validation

“…To counter the social desirability bias inherent in this type of instruments, it is also necessary to consider the objective measurement of knowledge/skills for EBP, as suggested in the conclusions of the most recent systematic reviews regarding EBP measuring instruments in different disciplines related to the Health Sciences, in which the need for the development and assessment of evaluation tools based on objective competency is manifested [3,4]. No less important is the need to obtain evidence concerning the instrument’s sensitivity to change.…”

“…This conceptual model is available elsewhere [22]. Finally, a series of items were proposed to be assigned to each of the areas, some of which were created ex novo while others were obtained from the ones included in other existing questionnaires, which had been identified based on a series of systematic reviews of the scientific literature [1,3,4]. …”

“…EBP assessment in healthcare related professions is usually conducted in the form of self-reported instruments [1–4]. This is due to the impossibility of conducting standardised observation of individual professional practice, from the point of view of both human and material resources.…”

“…Some systematic reviews have revealed the low prevalence of instruments aimed at measuring EBP from a transdiciplinary perspective [5–9], even though this is considered an important characteristic for their potential usefulness [4]. The first instruments to be developed on EBP from this perspective turned out to be very poor as far as evidence of their psychometric properties were concerned [1,6,7,10].…”

“…Besides, in all cases they were designed for application in a single discipline [1,3,4] and, from the evidence provided, continue to present significant shortcomings in their psychometric behaviour [11–13]. By way of example, in the McEvoy transprofessional instrument [5], which despite being able to be considered one of the most adequate ones to date, the operationalisation of the construct was not comprehensive and its field of validation was reduced to academic competencies.…”