Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Mar 5:3:100024.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2021.100024. eCollection 2021 Nov.

Measuring self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice: A systematic review on psychometric properties

P A Hoegen  1   2 , C M A de Bot  1 , M A Echteld  1 , H Vermeulen  2   3
Affiliations
Review

Measuring self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice: A systematic review on psychometric properties

P A Hoegen et al. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. .

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based practice has developed over the last 30 years as a tool for the best possible nursing care. Nevertheless, many nurses do not regularly participate in the evidence-based practice process. Barriers to participation include nurses' self-perceived ability in successfully fulfilling evidence-based practice-related tasks (self-efficacy) and their expectations of the positive outcomes of such tasks (outcome expectancy). To evaluate progress and provide feedback to professionals, monitoring the levels of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy with validated instruments is desirable. A comprehensive overview of the psychometric properties of such instruments is lacking.

Objectives: To determine the psychometric properties of instruments designed to measure nurses' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice.

Design and method: This systematic review was performed on studies reporting psychometric properties of instruments that measure self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in EBP. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched up to March 2020. Studies that reported psychometric properties on eligible scales and studied nurses or other healthcare professionals were included. Psychometric properties included content validity, construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness. The COSMIN risk of bias checklist and criteria for good measurement properties were applied independently by two reviewers. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183069).

Results: Eleven scales measuring self-efficacy or a similar construct and one scale measuring outcome expectancy were identified. The vast majority of the research focused on nurses. Internal consistency and structural validity were the most frequently reported properties, though the recommended confirmative factor analysis to verify the structural validity was rarely performed correctly. In addition, most studies that reported on construct validity did not hypothesise on the expected strength or direction of an effect before the data analysis. Responsiveness was not typically reported or was incorrectly studied. The included articles showed a high quality of evidence for four scales on structural validity and internal consistency. The Self-Efficacy in Evidence-Based Practice Activities scale showed the best content validity and was accompanied by an Outcome Expectations of Evidence-Based Practice scale. Both scales met the COSMIN standards for construct validity with high-quality evidence.

Conclusions: In light of the evidence, the Self-Efficacy in Evidence-Based Practice Activities scale is considered promising, and along with the accompanying Outcome Expectations of Evidence-Based Practice scale, appears capable of accurately measuring both self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. The use of these scales is recommended, and further research should be conducted on the responsiveness of the scales.

Keywords: Evidence based nursing; Evidence-based practice; Measurement; Nurses; Outcome expectancy; Psychometrics, systematic review; Quality of healthcare; Selfefficacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Fig 1:
Fig. 1
PRISMA Flow diagram of the selection process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991;50(2):179. https://ezproxy.avans.nl/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.as... Retrieved from.
    1. Bandura A. Freeman; New York: 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.
    1. Bandura A. In: Urdan T., Pajares F., editors. Vol. 5. Information Age Publishing; Greenwich: 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales; pp. 307–337. (Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents).
    1. Belowska J., Panczyk M., Zarzeka A., Iwanow L., Cieslak I., Gotlib J. Promoting evidence-based practice - perceived knowledge, behaviours and attitudes of Polish nurses: a cross-sectional validation study. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2018:1–9. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2018.1489993. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blackman I.R., Giles T. Psychometric evaluation of a self-report evidence-based practice tool using Rasch analysis. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2015;12(5):253–264. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12105. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources