title: Translation, cross-cultural adaption and measurement properties of the evidence-based practice profile.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The evidence-based practice profile (EBP2) questionnaire assesses students' self-reported knowledge, behaviour and attitudes related to evidence-based practice. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt EBP2into Norwegian and to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Norwegian version.
  
  
  METHODS
  EBP2was translated and cross-culturally adapted using recommended methodology. Face validity and feasibility were evaluated in a pilot on bachelor students and health and social workers (n = 18). Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel. Nursing students (n = 96), social educator students (n = 27), and health and social workers (n = 26) evaluated the instrument's measurement properties. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Discriminative validity was assessed by independent sample t test. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the structural validity of a five-factor model (Relevance, Sympathy, Terminology, Practice and Confidence) using the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A priori hypotheses on effect sizes and P values were formulated to evaluate the instrument's responsiveness.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The forward-backward translation was repeated three times before arriving at an acceptable version. Eleven of 58 items were re-worded. Face validity and content validity were confirmed. Cronbach's alpha was 0.90 or higher for all domains except Sympathy (0.66). ICC ranged from 0.45 (Practice) to 0.79 (Terminology) and SEM from 0.29 (Relevance) to 0.44 (Practice). There was a significant mean difference between exposure and no exposure to EBP for the domains Relevance, Terminology and Confidence. The CFA did not indicate an acceptable five-factor model fit (CFI = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.09). Responsiveness was as expected or better for all domains except Sympathy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The cross-culturally adapted EBP2-Norwegian version was valid and reliable for the domains Relevance, Terminology and Confidence, and responsive to change for all domains, except Sympathy. Further development of the instrument's items are needed to enhance the instruments reliability for the domains Practice and Sympathy.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Social Work and Social Education, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway. kristine.berg.titlestad@hvl.no.
authors.forename: Kristine Berg
authors.initials: KB
authors.lastname: Titlestad
authors.affiliation: Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
authors.forename: Anne Kristin
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Snibsoer
authors.affiliation: The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
authors.forename: Hilde
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Stromme
authors.affiliation: Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
authors.forename: Monica Wammen
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: Nortvedt
authors.affiliation: Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
authors.forename: Birgitte
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Graverholt
authors.affiliation: Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
authors.forename: Birgitte
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Espehaug
mesh_terms: D003431:Cross-Cultural Comparison; D055317:Evidence-Based Practice; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009664:Norway; D014175:Translating
keywords: Evidence-based practice; Psychometrics; Questionnaires; Reliability; Responsiveness; Students; Validity