Reliability of the Swedish version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale assessing physiotherapist’s attitudes to implementation of evidence-based practice

Autoři: Kirsti Skavberg Roaldsen aff001;  Alexandra Halvarsson aff001
Působiště autorů: Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden aff001;  Department of Research, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Nesoddtangen, Norway aff002;  Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway aff003;  Allied Health Professionals Function, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225467



To translate and apply a cross-cultural adaptation of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in Swedish and investigate its absolute and relative reliability.


The original EBPAS (a questionnaire assessing health professionals’ attitudes to implementation of evidence-based practice) was translated into Swedish using a forward and backward procedure, including a group discussion and expert committee. To assess reliability, 55 physiotherapists (48 women) aged 23–64 years from different clinical settings in the Stockholm region answered the EBPAS by postal survey twice within an interval of 2 weeks.


The Cronbach’s alpha values for EBPAS were >0.721. The intraclass correlation (ICC) between test and retest (relative reliability) was moderate to good for the four subscales, with ICC(A.1) and ICC(C.1) values approximately equal and in the range 0.56–0.89. Values for the absolute reliability of the mean score were a standard error of measurement of about 7% and a smallest real difference of about 19%.


The Swedish version of the EBPAS shows mainly good reliability.

Klíčová slova:

Cross-cultural studies – Mathematical functions – Physiotherapy – Questionnaires – Research assessment – Research validity – Sweden – Swedish people


1. Bhattacharyya OK, Estey EA, Zwarenstein M. Methodologies to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions: a primer for researchers and health care managers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):32–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.022 21130349

2. Aarons GA. Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res. 2004;6(2):61–74. doi: 10.1023/b:mhsr.0000024351.12294.65 15224451

3. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–32. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n 8263569

4. Cronbach L. Coefficient alhpa and the internal structure of tests. Psycometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

5. McGraw K, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods. 1996;1(1):30–46.

6. Liljequist D, Elvfing B., Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass Correlation–a Discussion and Demonstration of Basic Features. PLoS One. 2019; February 2019. Jul 22;14(7):e0219854 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219854 31329615

7. Bland J, Altman DC. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 2007;17:571–82. doi: 10.1080/10543400701329422 17613642

8. Bland J, Altman DC. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10. 2868172

9. Bland J, Altman DC. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 1990;20:337–40. doi: 10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-f 2257734

10. Norman G, Sreiner D. Biostatistics. The Bare Essentials. Second edition ed: BC Decker Inc; 2000.

11. Epstein J, Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Beaton DE, Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(4):360–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.013 24084448

12. De Paul J, Indias S, Arruabarrena I. Adaptation of the Evidence-Based Practices Attitude Scale in Spanish child welfare professionals. Psicothema. 2015;27(4):341–6. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.67 26493571

13. van Sonsbeek MA, Hutschemaekers GJ, Veerman JW, Kleinjan M, Aarons GA, Tiemens BG. Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:69. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0058-z 26572126

14. Egeland KM, Ruud T, Ogden T, Lindstrom JC, Heiervang KS. Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS): to measure implementation readiness. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0114-3 27316675

15. Melas CD, Zampetakis LA, Dimopoulou A, Moustakis V. Evaluating the properties of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) in health care. Psychol Assess. 2012;24(4):867–76. doi: 10.1037/a0027445 22409449

16. Aarons GA, Glisson C, Hoagwood K, Kelleher K, Landsverk J, Cafri G. Psychometric properties and U.S. National norms of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Psychol Assess. 2010;22(2):356–65. doi: 10.1037/a0019188 20528063

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 11