ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Reliability and Validity Studies of the Chinese Version of the Evidence-Based Practice and Evidence-Informed Practice Questionnaire.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To translate and culturally adapt the Evidence-Based Practice and Evidence-Informed Practice Questionnaire into the Chinese version and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: The process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation adhered to the established guidelines, followed by psychometric evaluation that assessed floor/ceiling effects, face validity, content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. The evaluation engaged 5 experts and 279 students (170 undergraduates and 109 postgraduates) from Beijing Sport University. Questionnaire items were categorized according to Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) and Evidence-Informed Practice (EIP) concepts, with varying response options for degree and frequency. Forty students completed the Chinese version of the questionnaire for the second time after a two-week period. Results: No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Following the revision of item 32 and deletion of item 14, the Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) for all other items ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, with an average scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.91. The final Chinese version of the questionnaire consists of 52 items, showing adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.78, 0.86, 0.86, and 0.89 for the EBP (degree and frequency) and EIP (degree and frequency) items, respectively. Comparison between test-retest scores produced significant differences in all items, with Spearman correlation coefficient (r) ranging from 0.33 to 0.80 (p<0.05), except for item 16 (r=0.29, p=0.065). Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results indicated Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values for EBP degree, EBP frequency, and EIP degree items ranging from 0.78 to 0.87. Bartlett's test of sphericity yielded significant results, explaining 63.62%, 69.35%, and 70.91% of the total variance, respectively, after removing items 23 and 42-44 (cross-loading items). Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Evidence-Based Practice and Evidence-Informed Practice Questionnaire demonstrated good psychometric properties for assessing the effectiveness of EBP and EIP educational programs tailored for physiotherapy and exercise rehabilitation students.
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.