Skip to main content

Table 4 Standardized factor loadings from model results

From: 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?

EBPAS subdomains and items Model
  First-order (1b) Second-order (2b) Bifactor model (3)
Subdomain General
Requirements   0.48   
 12.Agency required 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.45
 11.Supervisor required 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.37
 13.State required 0.78 0.78 0.60 0.49
Appeal   0.86   
 10.Make sense 0.64a 0.64a 0.31b 0.55b
 9.Intuitively appealing 0.62a 0.63a 0.18b 0.57b
 14.Colleagues happy 0.70 0.69 0.57 0.55
 15.Enough training 0.84 0.84 0.38 0.72
Openness   0.74   
 2.Will follow a manual 0.91 0.92 0.63 0.67
 1.Like new therapy types 0.63 0.62 0.40 0.68
 4.Research-based ok 0.82 0.82 0.68 0.34
 8.Different from usual 0.61 0.61 0.34 0.48
Divergence   −0.65   
 5.Research-based not useful 0.59 0.59 0.57 −0.36
 7.Would not use manualized 0.83 0.84 0.40 −0.57
 6.Clinical experience important 0.51 0.49 0.54 −0.36
 3.Know better than researchers 0.38 0.39 0.35 − 0.24
  1. N = 565 for all models tested. Item 11 (“Supervisor required”) and 12 (“Agency required”) in the indicators of the Requirements is fixed to 1. All models have an added correlation between item 9 and 10
  2. For model 2b the loadings to the general factors are on the rows of the factor labels. For model 3, to highlight the items providing the best discrimination on the general factor, items loading greater than .50 on the general factor are in boldface type. Items with larger loadings on group factor than general factor are also in bold face type. aresidual covariance = 0.65, p < .001. bresidual covariance =0.68 p < .001. All factor loadings were statistically significant p < .001