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?

Table 1 EBPAS subscale and item means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha and item-total correlation

EBPAS subscales and Total				Total scale	Sub-scale
EBPAS subscales and Total	M	SD	α	r	r
Requirements	2.70	0.82	.88
12.Agency required	2.61	0.92		.49	.88
11.Supervisor required	2.51	0.97		.44	.81
13.State required	2.98	0.84		.48	.63
Appeal	3.24	0.52	.74
10.Make sense	3.24	0.66		.43	.61
9.Intuitively appealing	3.15	0.75		.44	.58
14.Colleagues happy with therapy	3.11	0.72		.43	.46
15.Enough training	3.47	0.66		.53	.48
Openness	2.88	0.58	.76
2.Will follow a treatment manual	2.98	0.78		.58	.68
4.Therapy developed by researchers	3.08	0.72		.55	.59
1.Like new therapy types	2.90	0.72		.31	.52
8.Therapy different than usual	2.58	0.80		.39	.47
Divergence	1.20	0.59	.60
5.Research-based treatments not useful	0.92	0.92		.30	.42
7.Would not use manualized therapy	0.67	0.88		.53	.36
6.Clinical experience more important	1.90	0.84		.34	.42
3.Know better than researchers	0.28	0.93		.35	.27
EBPAS total	2.92	0.42	.81

N = 565. Total, subscales and item means scores range from 0 to 4. α Cronbach alpha, r Corrected item total

ISSN: 1471-2288