Adaptation and validation of the evidence-based practice profile (EBP2) questionnaire in a Norwegian primary healthcare setting

Abstract

Background Access to valid and reliable instruments is essential in the field of implementation science, where the measurement of factors associated with healthcare professionals’ uptake of EBP is central. The Norwegian version of the Evidence-based practice profile questionnaire (EBP2-N) measures EBP constructs, such as EBP knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and behavior. Despite its potential utility, the EBP2-N requires further validation before being used in a cross-sectional survey targeting different healthcare professionals in Norwegian primary healthcare. This study assessed the content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency of the EBP2-N among Norwegian primary healthcare professionals. Methods To evaluate the content validity of the EBP2-N, we conducted qualitative individual interviews with eight healthcare professionals in primary healthcare from different disciplines. Qualitative data was analyzed using the “text summary” model, followed by panel group discussions, minor linguistic changes, and a pilot test of the revised version. To evaluate construct validity (structural validity) and internal consistency, we used data from a web-based cross-sectional survey among nurses, assistant nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, medical doctors, and other professionals (n = 313). Structural validity was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the original five-factor structure, and Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess internal consistency. Results The qualitative interviews with primary healthcare professionals indicated that the content of the EBP2-N was perceived to reflect the constructs intended to be measured by the instrument. However, interviews revealed concerns regarding the formulation of some items, leading to minor linguistic revisions. In addition, several participants expressed that some of the most specific research terms in the terminology domain felt less relevant to them in clinical practice. CFA results exposed partial alignment with the original five-factor model, with the following model fit indices: CFI = 0.749, RMSEA = 0.074, and SRMR = 0.075. Cronbach’s alphas ranged between 0.82 and 0.95 for all domains except for the Sympathy domain (0.69), indicating good internal consistency in four out of five domains. Conclusion The EBP2-N is a suitable instrument for measuring Norwegian primary healthcare professionals’ EBP knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and behavior. Although EBP2-N seems to be an adequate instrument in its current form, we recommend that future research focuses on further assessing the factor structure, evaluating the relevance of the items, and the number of items needed.