Translation, cross-cultural adaption and measurement properties of the evidence-based practice profile

Abstract

BackgroundThe evidence-based practice profile (EBP2) questionnaire assesses students’ self-reported knowledge, behaviour and attitudes related to evidence-based practice. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt EBP2 into Norwegian and to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Norwegian version.MethodsEBP2 was translated and cross-culturally adapted using recommended methodology. Face validity and feasibility were evaluated in a pilot on bachelor students and health and social workers (n = 18). Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel. Nursing students (n = 96), social educator students (n = 27), and health and social workers (n = 26) evaluated the instrument’s measurement properties. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency. Test–retest reliability was evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Discriminative validity was assessed by independent sample t test. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the structural validity of a five-factor model (Relevance, Sympathy, Terminology, Practice and Confidence) using the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A priori hypotheses on effect sizes and P values were formulated to evaluate the instrument’s responsiveness.ResultsThe forward–backward translation was repeated three times before arriving at an acceptable version. Eleven of 58 items were re-worded. Face validity and content validity were confirmed. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90 or higher for all domains except Sympathy (0.66). ICC ranged from 0.45 (Practice) to 0.79 (Terminology) and SEM from 0.29 (Relevance) to 0.44 (Practice). There was a significant mean difference between exposure and no exposure to EBP for the domains Relevance, Terminology and Confidence. The CFA did not indicate an acceptable five-factor model fit (CFI = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.09). Responsiveness was as expected or better for all domains except Sympathy.ConclusionsThe cross-culturally adapted EBP2-Norwegian version was valid and reliable for the domains Relevance, Terminology and Confidence, and responsive to change for all domains, except Sympathy. Further development of the instrument’s items are needed to enhance the instruments reliability for the domains Practice and Sympathy.

Development and validation of the Chinese version of the evidence-based practice profile questionnaire (EBP2Q)

“…Similar to the English version of the EBP 2 Q, the Polish version has shown high internal consistencies (Cronbach's α = 0.80-0.97) and theoretical and criterion validity were confirmed [29]. The EBP 2 Q was also translated into Norwegian by Titlestad et al [30] and validated in 149 nursing students, social education students, and health and social workers. The Norwegian EBP 2 Q showed high internal consistencies (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.90), except for Sympathy (Cronbach's α = 0.66), and demonstrated criterion and responsive validity [30].…”

Evidence-based practice profiles among bachelor students in four health disciplines: a cross-sectional study

“…Thus, before the questionnaire was used in our survey, the EBP 2 -N was reviewed and imprecise items ( n = 12) were revised by an expert panel. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed the same results as in the validation study [ 29 ]. Cronbach’s alpha for the five domains ranged from 0.69 (Sympathy) to 0.90 (Confidence) (Additional file 1 ).…”

“…We used the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice Profile (EBP 2 ) questionnaire [ 25 , 29 ], a self-reported questionnaire that examines self-perceived EBP knowledge, attitude and behaviour. The questionnaire is trans-professional, assesses the five steps of EBP and incorporates elements of EBP that are likely to change as a result of education, training and exposure over time.…”

“…The Evidence-Based Practice Profile – Norwegian version (EBP 2 -N) has been translated, culturally adapted and psychometric tested [ 29 ]. EBP 2 -N was found valid and reliable for the domains Relevance, Terminology and Confidence, and responsive to change for all domains, except Sympathy.…”

Self-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of evidence-based practice terminology among healthcare students: A cross-sectional study

“…The questionnaire has been translated into Norwegian, cross-culturally adapted and validated among Norwegian bachelor students and healthcare professionals from various disciplines. In the Norwegian version, the EBP 2 Terminology domain was found reliable, valid and responsive to change [ 36 ].…”