« Back to Assessment Instruments
Qualitative/Quantitative:
Type of Instrument:
Number of Items:
15Subscale Information:
Appeal (4)
Openness (4)
Requirements (3)
Divergence (4)Language Availability:
Brief Description:
The EBPAS subscales represent four distinct constructs involving willingness to adopt EBPs given their intuitive appeal, willingness to adopt new practices if required, general openness toward new or innovative practices, and perceived divergence of usual practice with academically developed or research-based practices.Website:
Not FoundInstrument and/or related documentation:
Citing Literature - Development/Original:
Aarons G. A. (2004). Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Mental health services research, 6(2), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:mhsr.0000024351.12294.65. PMID: 15224451; PMCID: PMC1564126.Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Karam Jones, A. M., Fitzsimmons-Craft, E. E., D'Adamo, L., Eichen, D. M., Graham, A. K., Kolko Conlon, R. P., Balantekin, K. N., Welch, R. R., Agras, W. S., Wilson, G. T., & Wilfley, D. E. (2024). A pilot study evaluating online training for therapist delivery of interpersonal psychotherapy for eating disorders. The International journal of eating disorders, 57(8), 1691–1706. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24197. PMID: 38623931 PMCID: PMC11343679.
Brown, L. A., Gaudiano, B. A., & Miller, I. W. (2011). Investigating the similarities and differences between practitioners of second- and third-wave cognitive-behavioral therapies. Behavior modification, 35(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445510393730. PMID: 21324946 PMCID: PMC3671395
Wiltsey Stirman, S., Gutner, C. A., Crits-Christoph, P., Edmunds, J., Evans, A. C., & Beidas, R. S. (2015). Relationships between clinician-level attributes and fidelity-consistent and fidelity-inconsistent modifications to an evidence-based psychotherapy. Implementation science : IS, 10, 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0308-z. PMID: 26268633 PMCID: PMC4534152.Version:
15-item Related Instruments:
Evidence Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS)
Qualitative/Quantitative:
The assessment instrument uses quantitative and/or qualitative data
- Quantitative
Type of Instrument:
The type of the assessment instrument
- Survey
Number of Items:
Number of items in the assessment instrument
15Subscale Information:
Names of each of the subscales and the number of items for each of the subscales
Appeal (4)Openness (4)
Requirements (3)
Divergence (4)
Language Availability:
Language(s) in which the assessment instrument is available
- English
Brief Description:
Brief summary description of assessment instrument
The EBPAS subscales represent four distinct constructs involving willingness to adopt EBPs given their intuitive appeal, willingness to adopt new practices if required, general openness toward new or innovative practices, and perceived divergence of usual practice with academically developed or research-based practices.Website:
Website providing access to and/or describing the assessment instrument
Not FoundInstrument and/or related documentation:
Related files uploaded (instrument if directly available) including descriptions for each
Citing Literature - Development/Original:
Reference for publication describing the development of the assessment instrument
Aarons G. A. (2004). Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Mental health services research, 6(2), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:mhsr.0000024351.12294.65. PMID: 15224451; PMCID: PMC1564126.Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Reference for publications on the application of the assessment instrument
Karam Jones, A. M., Fitzsimmons-Craft, E. E., D'Adamo, L., Eichen, D. M., Graham, A. K., Kolko Conlon, R. P., Balantekin, K. N., Welch, R. R., Agras, W. S., Wilson, G. T., & Wilfley, D. E. (2024). A pilot study evaluating online training for therapist delivery of interpersonal psychotherapy for eating disorders. The International journal of eating disorders, 57(8), 1691–1706. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24197. PMID: 38623931 PMCID: PMC11343679.Brown, L. A., Gaudiano, B. A., & Miller, I. W. (2011). Investigating the similarities and differences between practitioners of second- and third-wave cognitive-behavioral therapies. Behavior modification, 35(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445510393730. PMID: 21324946 PMCID: PMC3671395
Wiltsey Stirman, S., Gutner, C. A., Crits-Christoph, P., Edmunds, J., Evans, A. C., & Beidas, R. S. (2015). Relationships between clinician-level attributes and fidelity-consistent and fidelity-inconsistent modifications to an evidence-based psychotherapy. Implementation science : IS, 10, 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0308-z. PMID: 26268633 PMCID: PMC4534152.
Version:
Number/name of the most recent version of the assessment instrument
15-item Related Instruments:
Indicate if assessment instrument is related to another instrument in the repository.
Implementation Science Considerations
- Active Implementation Framework
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Translation within the Research Cycle Model or Knowledge Action Model
- Choosing Wisely Deimplementation Framework
- Conceptual Framework for Research Knowledge Transfer and Utilization
- Conduct and Utilization of Research in Nursing (CURN)
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0
- Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework
- Coordinated Implementation Model
- Critical Realism & the Arts Research Utilization Model (CRARIUM)
- Davis' Pathman-PRECEED Model
- Dissemination and Implementation Framework for an Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Program
- Dissemination of Evidence-based Interventions to Prevent Obesity
- EMTReK - Evidence-based Model for the Transfer and Exchange of Research Knowledge
- EQ-DI Framework
- Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) model (Conceptual Model of Evidence-based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors)
- Facilitating Adoption of Best Practices (FAB) Model
- Framework for Analyzing Adoption of Complex Health Innovations
- Framework for Dissemination of Evidence-Based Policy
- Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation
- Framework for the Dissemination & Utilization of Research for Health-Care Policy & Practice
- Framework for the Transfer of Patient Safety Research into Practice
- Framework of Dissemination in Health Services Intervention Research
- Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations
- Health Equity Implementation Framework
- Implementation Effectiveness Model
- Intervention Mapping
- Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice
- Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model and Guidelines
- Kingdon's Multiple-Streams Framework
- Knowledge Exchange Framework
- Model for Improving the Dissemination of Nursing Research
- Model for Predictors of Adoption
- Organizational Theory of Innovation Implementation
- OutPatient Treatment in Ontario Services (OPTIONS) Model
- Pathways to Evidence Informed Policy
- Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)
- Process Model of Implementation from a Policy Perspective Depicting the Process at One Policy Level
- Proctor's Implementation Outcomes
- Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS)
- RE-AIM 1.0 Framework
- RE-AIM 2.0/Contextually Expanded RE-AIM
- The SPIRIT Action Framework
- Theoretical Domains Framework
- Transcreation Framework for Community-engaged Behavioral Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities
- Weiner organizational readiness
- Adoption
- Pre-Implementation
- Implementation
- Sustainment
Constructs Assessed:
Constructs assessed by the assessment instrument (linked to constructs included in the D&I models webtool)Theories, Models, Frameworks Relevant:
The D&I TMFs relevant for the assesment instrument based on constructs assessedImplementation Outcomes:
The relevance of the assessment instrument to various implementation outcomesImplementation Strategies:
Not FoundThe implementation strategy/ies evaluated by the assessment instrumentPhase of Implementation Process:
Phase of implementation process when the assessment instrument can be used
Intended Focus
- Implementer
- Clinician
- Public Health Practitioner
- Clinical Outpatient
- Clinical Inpatient
- Residential Care
- School
Levels of Data Collection:
The level(s) from which the assessment instrument collects dataIntended Priority Population:
Intended priority population from whom data are collected using the assessment instrumentIntended Priority Setting:
Intended priority setting in which the assessment instrument is usedPolicy:
Not FoundAssessment instrument is relevant to policyEquity Focus:
Not Found
Psychometric Properties
- Internal Consistency
Scoring:
YesThe assessment instrument produces a composite scoreNorms:
Not FoundMeasures of central tendency and distribution for the total score are based on small, medium, large sample sizeResponsiveness:
Not FoundThe ability of the assessment instrument to detect change over time (i.e., sensitivity to change or intervention effects).Validity:
Not FoundThe extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure accurately.Reliability:
The extent to which results are consistent results over time, across raters, across settings, or across items intended to measure the same thing.Factor Analysis:
YesA statistical method that uses the correlation between observed variables to identify common factors.
Pragmatic Properties
- Medium: Asyncronous collection of data
Time to Administer:
1-2 minsThe amount of time required to complete the assessment instrumentSecondary Data:
Not FoundCost:
FreeCost associated with access to assessment instrument (Some instruments might require login.)Literacy:
Not FoundReadability of the items reported on.Interpretation:
NoExpertise needed for interpretation of data is reported.Training:
NoExpertise needed to use the assessment instrument is reportedResources Required to Administer:
None/LowResources needed to administer the assessment instrument (FTE for data collector, equipment, etc.)User Guidance:
Not FoundGuides are provided to support administration of assessment instrument/data collection, and/or analysis of data from the assessment instrument, and/or interpretation of data, and/or action/decision on how to use dataObtrusiveness:
Degree of intrusion the participants will experience because of the data collection when using the assessment instrument (e.g., assessment instruments that rely on use of secondary data or automated data will be less obtrusive)Interactivity:
Not FoundData collection and/or result generation involves interactive components.
Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write one.