ArticleBMC medical education2024
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Spanish Evidence-Based Practice Confidence (EPIC) scale in occupational therapy students and professionals.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing self-efficacy in evidence-based practice (EBP) is crucial for identifying training needs, evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs, and assessing the overall application confidence of EBP in healthcare professions, including occupational therapy (OT). Thus, the objectives of this study were to cross-culturally adapt the Evidence-Based Practice Confidence Scale (EPIC) for Spanish-speaking OT students and professionals and to evaluate its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity.
methodsA professional translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the EPIC was developed, including a pilot study that resulted in the EPIC Spanish version. A total of 260 OT students and 202 professionals completed the Spanish EPIC at baseline, with 177 (68.1%) students and 129 (63.9%) professionals participating in the test-retest reliability assessment two weeks later. The EPIC's internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability was assessed using Spearman's correlations and intra-class correlations (ICC). Known-groups validity hypothesis based on participants' roles (students, diploma/bachelor's, master's, and doctorate) was explored using ANOVA. Finally, an exploratory factor analysis with oblique Promax rotation was conducted to examine the EPIC factor structure.
resultsCronbach's alpha for the total EPIC score was excellent in both OT professionals (α = 0.91) and students (α = 0.90). For OT students, Spearman's correlation was 0.67 (p < 0.001) for the total score, and the ICC was 0.66 (95%CI 0.57-0.73). Conversely, for OT professionals, test-retest reliability showed a Spearman's correlation of 0.87 (p < 0.001) for the total score, and the ICC was 0.87 (95%CI 0.81-0.90). The highest scores were observed in professionals with a doctorate followed by those with a master's degree (p < 0.001). The exploratory factor analysis yielded a 3-factor solution that explained 71% of the observed variance, with item-level loadings ≥ 0.35.
conclusionsThe EPIC scale showed excellent internal consistency, strong test-retest reliability, and adequate construct validity for evaluating EBP self-efficacy among Spanish-speaking OT professionals using the total score. However, test-retest reliability was moderate among Spanish-speaking OT students, indicating that changes in EBP confidence assessed with the EPIC scale in this group should be interpreted with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.