Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure
Valid, reliable, and acceptable tools for assessing self-reported competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) are required to provide insight into the current status of EIDM knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours for registered nurses working in public health. The purpose of...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-08, Vol.17 (8), p.e0272699-e0272699 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0272699 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | e0272699 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Belita, Emily Fisher, Kathryn Yost, Jennifer Squires, Janet E Ganann, Rebecca Dobbins, Maureen |
| description | Valid, reliable, and acceptable tools for assessing self-reported competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) are required to provide insight into the current status of EIDM knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours for registered nurses working in public health. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the EIDM Competence Measure. A psychometric study design was employed guided by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and general measurement development principles. All registered nurses working across 16 public health units in Ontario, Canada were invited to complete the newly developed EIDM Competence Measure via an online survey. The EIDM Competence Measure is a self-reported tool consisting of four EIDM subscales: 1) knowledge; 2) skills; 3) attitudes/beliefs; and 4) behaviours. Acceptability was measured by completion time and percentage of missing data of the original 40-item tool. The internal structure of the tool was first assessed through item-subscale total and item-item correlations within subscales for potential item reduction of the original 40-item tool. Following item reduction which resulted in a revised 27-item EIDM Competence Measure, a principal component analysis using an oblique rotation was performed to confirm the four subscale structure. Validity based on relationships to other variables was assessed by exploring associations between EIDM competence attributes and individual factors (e.g., years of nursing experience, education) and organizational factors (e.g., resource allocation). Internal reliability within each subscale was analyzed using Cronbach’s alphas. Across 16 participating public health units, 201 nurses (mean years as a registered nurse = 18.1, predominantly female n = 197; 98%) completed the EIDM Competence Measure. Overall missing data were minimal as 93% of participants completed the entire original 40-item tool (i.e., no missing data), with 7% of participants having one or more items with missing data. Only one participant (0.5%) had >10% of missing data (i.e., more than 4 out of 40 items with data missing). Mean completion time was 7 minutes and 20 seconds for the 40-item tool. Extraction of a four-factor model based on the 27-item version of the scale showed substantial factor loadings (>0.4) that aligned with the four EIDM subscales of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours. Significant relationships between EID |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0272699 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2699088873</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A712662284</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_2342d6f8000742d6b7f75cfe5f27c1d2</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A712662284</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b03e795b30847fdc576e3543e84dcf5517152d0688a2462f6c9bebee88ca7be83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUk1v1DAQjRCIlsI_QCISlyI1i2PHH7kgVe0WVmrFBbhajj3eepvEqZ1U6r_H6QbEosoH2-M3b-aNX5a9L9GqJLz8vPNT6FW7GnwPK4Q5ZnX9Ijsua4ILhhF5-c_5KHsT4w4hSgRjr7MjQmuCqKiPs7tfqnXGjY9neYDWqca1TxfVm1xpDcO4hHJv8_EW8vWDM9BrKDa99aEDk1-CdtH5vrhRd67f5qfrzeXNp1z7boBxhuYdqDgFeJu9sqqN8G7ZT7KfV-sfF9-K6-9fNxfn14WmCI1FgwjwmjYEiYpboylnQGhFQFRGW0pLXlJsEBNC4Yphy3TdQAMghFa8AUFOsg973qH1US5zinIeEBJCcJIQmz3CeLWTQ3CdCo_SKyefAj5spQqj0y1ITCpsmBUIIT6fGm451RaoxVyXBieuL0u1qUnj0NCPQbUHpIcvvbuVW_8ga5K01DQRnC4Ewd9PEEfZuaihbVUPftr3zREWnCXox_-gz6tbUFuVBLj0T6munknlOS8xYxiLKqFWz6DSMtA5nUxlXYofJFT7BB18jAHsX40lkrMl_zQjZ0vKxZLkN1l01AA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2699088873</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Belita, Emily ; Fisher, Kathryn ; Yost, Jennifer ; Squires, Janet E ; Ganann, Rebecca ; Dobbins, Maureen</creator><contributor>Telfair, Joseph</contributor><creatorcontrib>Belita, Emily ; Fisher, Kathryn ; Yost, Jennifer ; Squires, Janet E ; Ganann, Rebecca ; Dobbins, Maureen ; Telfair, Joseph</creatorcontrib><description>Valid, reliable, and acceptable tools for assessing self-reported competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) are required to provide insight into the current status of EIDM knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours for registered nurses working in public health. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the EIDM Competence Measure. A psychometric study design was employed guided by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and general measurement development principles. All registered nurses working across 16 public health units in Ontario, Canada were invited to complete the newly developed EIDM Competence Measure via an online survey. The EIDM Competence Measure is a self-reported tool consisting of four EIDM subscales: 1) knowledge; 2) skills; 3) attitudes/beliefs; and 4) behaviours. Acceptability was measured by completion time and percentage of missing data of the original 40-item tool. The internal structure of the tool was first assessed through item-subscale total and item-item correlations within subscales for potential item reduction of the original 40-item tool. Following item reduction which resulted in a revised 27-item EIDM Competence Measure, a principal component analysis using an oblique rotation was performed to confirm the four subscale structure. Validity based on relationships to other variables was assessed by exploring associations between EIDM competence attributes and individual factors (e.g., years of nursing experience, education) and organizational factors (e.g., resource allocation). Internal reliability within each subscale was analyzed using Cronbach’s alphas. Across 16 participating public health units, 201 nurses (mean years as a registered nurse = 18.1, predominantly female n = 197; 98%) completed the EIDM Competence Measure. Overall missing data were minimal as 93% of participants completed the entire original 40-item tool (i.e., no missing data), with 7% of participants having one or more items with missing data. Only one participant (0.5%) had >10% of missing data (i.e., more than 4 out of 40 items with data missing). Mean completion time was 7 minutes and 20 seconds for the 40-item tool. Extraction of a four-factor model based on the 27-item version of the scale showed substantial factor loadings (>0.4) that aligned with the four EIDM subscales of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours. Significant relationships between EIDM competence subscale scores and education, EIDM training, EIDM project involvement, and supportive organizational culture were observed. Cronbach’s alphas exceeded minimum standards for all subscales: knowledge (α = 0.96); skills (α = 0.93); attitudes/beliefs (α = 0.80); and behaviours (α = 0.94).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272699</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35930589</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acceptability ; Attitudes ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Completion time ; Decision making ; Education ; Evaluation ; Evidence-based nursing ; Evidence-based practice ; Forecasts and trends ; Knowledge ; Medical personnel ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Missing data ; Nurses ; Organizational aspects ; People and Places ; Physical Sciences ; Practice ; Principal components analysis ; Professional development ; Professional ethics ; Professionals ; Psychological assessment ; Psychological tests ; Public health ; Quantitative psychology ; Questionnaires ; Reduction ; Reliability analysis ; Reliability aspects ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Resource allocation ; Skills ; Social Sciences ; Validity</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-08, Vol.17 (8), p.e0272699-e0272699</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Belita et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Belita et al 2022 Belita et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b03e795b30847fdc576e3543e84dcf5517152d0688a2462f6c9bebee88ca7be83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b03e795b30847fdc576e3543e84dcf5517152d0688a2462f6c9bebee88ca7be83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7566-8932 ; 0000-0001-8342-1238 ; 0000-0002-4107-5354</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355195/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355195/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,862,883,2098,2917,23853,27911,27912,53778,53780,79357,79358</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Telfair, Joseph</contributor><creatorcontrib>Belita, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Kathryn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yost, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Squires, Janet E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganann, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dobbins, Maureen</creatorcontrib><title>Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Valid, reliable, and acceptable tools for assessing self-reported competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) are required to provide insight into the current status of EIDM knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours for registered nurses working in public health. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the EIDM Competence Measure. A psychometric study design was employed guided by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and general measurement development principles. All registered nurses working across 16 public health units in Ontario, Canada were invited to complete the newly developed EIDM Competence Measure via an online survey. The EIDM Competence Measure is a self-reported tool consisting of four EIDM subscales: 1) knowledge; 2) skills; 3) attitudes/beliefs; and 4) behaviours. Acceptability was measured by completion time and percentage of missing data of the original 40-item tool. The internal structure of the tool was first assessed through item-subscale total and item-item correlations within subscales for potential item reduction of the original 40-item tool. Following item reduction which resulted in a revised 27-item EIDM Competence Measure, a principal component analysis using an oblique rotation was performed to confirm the four subscale structure. Validity based on relationships to other variables was assessed by exploring associations between EIDM competence attributes and individual factors (e.g., years of nursing experience, education) and organizational factors (e.g., resource allocation). Internal reliability within each subscale was analyzed using Cronbach’s alphas. Across 16 participating public health units, 201 nurses (mean years as a registered nurse = 18.1, predominantly female n = 197; 98%) completed the EIDM Competence Measure. Overall missing data were minimal as 93% of participants completed the entire original 40-item tool (i.e., no missing data), with 7% of participants having one or more items with missing data. Only one participant (0.5%) had >10% of missing data (i.e., more than 4 out of 40 items with data missing). Mean completion time was 7 minutes and 20 seconds for the 40-item tool. Extraction of a four-factor model based on the 27-item version of the scale showed substantial factor loadings (>0.4) that aligned with the four EIDM subscales of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours. Significant relationships between EIDM competence subscale scores and education, EIDM training, EIDM project involvement, and supportive organizational culture were observed. Cronbach’s alphas exceeded minimum standards for all subscales: knowledge (α = 0.96); skills (α = 0.93); attitudes/beliefs (α = 0.80); and behaviours (α = 0.94).</description><subject>Acceptability</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Completion time</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Evidence-based nursing</subject><subject>Evidence-based practice</subject><subject>Forecasts and trends</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Missing data</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Organizational aspects</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Professional development</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Psychological assessment</subject><subject>Psychological tests</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Reliability analysis</subject><subject>Reliability aspects</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUk1v1DAQjRCIlsI_QCISlyI1i2PHH7kgVe0WVmrFBbhajj3eepvEqZ1U6r_H6QbEosoH2-M3b-aNX5a9L9GqJLz8vPNT6FW7GnwPK4Q5ZnX9Ijsua4ILhhF5-c_5KHsT4w4hSgRjr7MjQmuCqKiPs7tfqnXGjY9neYDWqca1TxfVm1xpDcO4hHJv8_EW8vWDM9BrKDa99aEDk1-CdtH5vrhRd67f5qfrzeXNp1z7boBxhuYdqDgFeJu9sqqN8G7ZT7KfV-sfF9-K6-9fNxfn14WmCI1FgwjwmjYEiYpboylnQGhFQFRGW0pLXlJsEBNC4Yphy3TdQAMghFa8AUFOsg973qH1US5zinIeEBJCcJIQmz3CeLWTQ3CdCo_SKyefAj5spQqj0y1ITCpsmBUIIT6fGm451RaoxVyXBieuL0u1qUnj0NCPQbUHpIcvvbuVW_8ga5K01DQRnC4Ewd9PEEfZuaihbVUPftr3zREWnCXox_-gz6tbUFuVBLj0T6munknlOS8xYxiLKqFWz6DSMtA5nUxlXYofJFT7BB18jAHsX40lkrMl_zQjZ0vKxZLkN1l01AA</recordid><startdate>20220805</startdate><enddate>20220805</enddate><creator>Belita, Emily</creator><creator>Fisher, Kathryn</creator><creator>Yost, Jennifer</creator><creator>Squires, Janet E</creator><creator>Ganann, Rebecca</creator><creator>Dobbins, Maureen</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7566-8932</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8342-1238</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4107-5354</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220805</creationdate><title>Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure</title><author>Belita, Emily ; Fisher, Kathryn ; Yost, Jennifer ; Squires, Janet E ; Ganann, Rebecca ; Dobbins, Maureen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b03e795b30847fdc576e3543e84dcf5517152d0688a2462f6c9bebee88ca7be83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Acceptability</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Completion time</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Evidence-based nursing</topic><topic>Evidence-based practice</topic><topic>Forecasts and trends</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Missing data</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Organizational aspects</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Professional development</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Psychological assessment</topic><topic>Psychological tests</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Reliability analysis</topic><topic>Reliability aspects</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Belita, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Kathryn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yost, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Squires, Janet E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganann, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dobbins, Maureen</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Belita, Emily</au><au>Fisher, Kathryn</au><au>Yost, Jennifer</au><au>Squires, Janet E</au><au>Ganann, Rebecca</au><au>Dobbins, Maureen</au><au>Telfair, Joseph</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-08-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0272699</spage><epage>e0272699</epage><pages>e0272699-e0272699</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Valid, reliable, and acceptable tools for assessing self-reported competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) are required to provide insight into the current status of EIDM knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours for registered nurses working in public health. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the EIDM Competence Measure. A psychometric study design was employed guided by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and general measurement development principles. All registered nurses working across 16 public health units in Ontario, Canada were invited to complete the newly developed EIDM Competence Measure via an online survey. The EIDM Competence Measure is a self-reported tool consisting of four EIDM subscales: 1) knowledge; 2) skills; 3) attitudes/beliefs; and 4) behaviours. Acceptability was measured by completion time and percentage of missing data of the original 40-item tool. The internal structure of the tool was first assessed through item-subscale total and item-item correlations within subscales for potential item reduction of the original 40-item tool. Following item reduction which resulted in a revised 27-item EIDM Competence Measure, a principal component analysis using an oblique rotation was performed to confirm the four subscale structure. Validity based on relationships to other variables was assessed by exploring associations between EIDM competence attributes and individual factors (e.g., years of nursing experience, education) and organizational factors (e.g., resource allocation). Internal reliability within each subscale was analyzed using Cronbach’s alphas. Across 16 participating public health units, 201 nurses (mean years as a registered nurse = 18.1, predominantly female n = 197; 98%) completed the EIDM Competence Measure. Overall missing data were minimal as 93% of participants completed the entire original 40-item tool (i.e., no missing data), with 7% of participants having one or more items with missing data. Only one participant (0.5%) had >10% of missing data (i.e., more than 4 out of 40 items with data missing). Mean completion time was 7 minutes and 20 seconds for the 40-item tool. Extraction of a four-factor model based on the 27-item version of the scale showed substantial factor loadings (>0.4) that aligned with the four EIDM subscales of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours. Significant relationships between EIDM competence subscale scores and education, EIDM training, EIDM project involvement, and supportive organizational culture were observed. Cronbach’s alphas exceeded minimum standards for all subscales: knowledge (α = 0.96); skills (α = 0.93); attitudes/beliefs (α = 0.80); and behaviours (α = 0.94).</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>35930589</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0272699</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7566-8932</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8342-1238</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4107-5354</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2022-08, Vol.17 (8), p.e0272699-e0272699 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2699088873 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Acceptability Attitudes Biology and Life Sciences Completion time Decision making Education Evaluation Evidence-based nursing Evidence-based practice Forecasts and trends Knowledge Medical personnel Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Missing data Nurses Organizational aspects People and Places Physical Sciences Practice Principal components analysis Professional development Professional ethics Professionals Psychological assessment Psychological tests Public health Quantitative psychology Questionnaires Reduction Reliability analysis Reliability aspects Research and Analysis Methods Resource allocation Skills Social Sciences Validity |
| title | Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T10%3A29%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity,%20reliability,%20and%20acceptability%20of%20the%20Evidence-Informed%20Decision-Making%20(EIDM)%20competence%20measure&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Belita,%20Emily&rft.date=2022-08-05&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0272699&rft.epage=e0272699&rft.pages=e0272699-e0272699&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0272699&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA712662284%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2699088873&rft_id=info:pmid/35930589&rft_galeid=A712662284&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_2342d6f8000742d6b7f75cfe5f27c1d2&rfr_iscdi=true |