An examination of the psychologists' attitudes towards complementary and alternative therapies scale within a practitioner sample

This study assessed the validity of a scale measuring psychologists' attitudes towards complementary and alternative therapies and compared the attitudes of psychologists with a previous sample of psychology students. The scale, derived from existing measures for medical professionals and previously tested on a sample of psychology students, was completed by practising psychologists (N = 122). The data were factor analysed, and three correlated subscales were identified, assessing the perceived importance of knowledge about available therapies, attitudes towards integration with psychological practice, and concerns about associated risks of use. This structure was similar, but not identical, to that found in a previous sample of psychology students; however, psychologists expressed more concern for risks associated with integration and were less likely to hold a positive attitude towards integration. This scale will be useful in gauging changes in psychologists' attitudes towards integrative practice over time.

Validation of scales measuring self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is embraced internationally as an ideal approach to improve patient outcomes and provide cost-effective care. However, despite the support for and apparent benefits of evidence-based practice, it has been shown to be complex and difficult to incorporate into the clinical setting. Research exploring implementation of evidence-based practice has highlighted many internal and external barriers including clinicians’ lack of knowledge and confidence to integrate EBP into their day-to-day work. Nurses in particular often feel ill-equipped with little confidence to find, appraise and implement evidence. Aims: The following study aimed to undertake preliminary testing of the psychometric properties of tools that measure nurses’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in regard to evidence-based practice. Methods: A survey design was utilised in which nurses who had either completed an EBP unit or were randomly selected from a major tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia were sent two newly developed tools: 1) Self-efficacy in Evidence-Based Practice (SE-EBP) scale and 2) Outcome Expectancy for Evidence-Based Practice (OE-EBP) scale. Results: Principal Axis Factoring found three factors with eigenvalues above one for the SE-EBP explaining 73% of the variance and one factor for the OE-EBP scale explaining 82% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for SE-EBP, three SE-EBP factors and OE-EBP were all >.91 suggesting some item redundancy. The SE-EBP was able to distinguish between those with no prior exposure to EBP and those who completed an introductory EBP unit. Conclusions: While further investigation of the validity of these tools is needed, preliminary testing indicates that the SE-EBP and OE-EBP scales are valid and reliable instruments for measuring health professionals’ confidence in the process and the outcomes of basing their practice on evidence.