Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39866967›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025

Nurses' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice: Translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch scales.

Peter Hoegen, Michael Echteld, Cindy de Bot, Annemarie de Vos, Derya Demirçay, Mary-Anne Ramis, Lidwine Mokkink, Hester Vermeulen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Peter HoegenSchool of Health and Social Care, Avans University of Applied Science, Hogeschoollaan 1, 4818 CR Breda, The Netherlands.
Michael EchteldCentre of Expertise Perspective in Health, Care and Wellbeing, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands.
Cindy de BotCentre of Expertise Perspective in Health, Care and Wellbeing, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands.
Annemarie de VosCentre of Expertise Perspective in Health, Care and Wellbeing, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands.
Derya DemirçayCentre of Expertise Perspective in Health, Care and Wellbeing, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands.
Mary-Anne RamisMater Health and Queensland Centre for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Brisbane, Queensland Australia.
Lidwine MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hester VermeulenRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Health), Radboud University Medical Center, Kapittelweg 54, 6525 EP Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is crucial for appropriate, effective, and affordable care. Despite EBP education, barriers like low self-efficacy and outcome expectancy limit nurses' engagement in EBP. Reliable scales are essential to evaluate interventions aimed at improving self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in EBP. The English Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP scales are psychometrically sound. Objectives: To describe the translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP Scales. Method: The scales were translated forward and backward, piloted for comprehensibility and completeness and then administered among Dutch nurses and nursing students. Results: Pilot testing confirmed comprehensibility, completeness, and relevance of the items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) ( Discussion: Both scales exhibit theoretical soundness and positive fit indices. Significant chi-square tests and high correlations between weighted and unweighted scores support using unweighted scores over utilizing the estimated model to calculate weighted scores. Conclusions: Construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy in EBP Scales are good. Future research should prioritize responsiveness and test-retest reliability.

Indexed as

Evidence-based practiceNursesOutcome expectancyPsychometricsSelf-efficacySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39866967
PMCPMC11762229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.