↓ Skip to main content

Assessing mental health clinicians’ intentions to adopt evidence-based treatments: reliability and validity testing of the evidence-based treatment intentions scale

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing mental health clinicians’ intentions to adopt evidence-based treatments: reliability and validity testing of the evidence-based treatment intentions scale
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0417-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathaniel J. Williams

Abstract

Intentions play a central role in numerous empirically supported theories of behavior and behavior change and have been identified as a potentially important antecedent to successful evidence-based treatment (EBT) implementation. Despite this, few measures of mental health clinicians' EBT intentions exist and available measures have not been subject to thorough psychometric evaluation or testing. This paper evaluates the psychometric properties of the evidence-based treatment intentions (EBTI) scale, a new measure of mental health clinicians' intentions to adopt EBTs. The study evaluates the reliability and validity of inferences made with the EBTI using multi-method, multi-informant criterion variables collected over 12 months from a sample of 197 mental health clinicians delivering services in 13 mental health agencies. Structural, predictive, and discriminant validity evidence is assessed. Findings support the EBTI's factor structure (χ (2)  = 3.96, df = 5, p = .556) and internal consistency reliability (α = .80). Predictive validity evidence was provided by robust and significant associations between EBTI scores and clinicians' observer-reported attendance at a voluntary EBT workshop at a 1-month follow-up (OR = 1.92, p < .05), self-reported EBT adoption at a 12-month follow-up (R (2) = .17, p < .001), and self-reported use of EBTs with clients at a 12-month follow-up (R (2) = .25, p < .001). Discriminant validity evidence was provided by small associations with clinicians' concurrently measured psychological work climate perceptions of functionality (R (2) = .06, p < .05), engagement (R (2) = .06, p < .05), and stress (R (2) = .00, ns). The EBTI is a practical and theoretically grounded measure of mental health clinicians' EBT intentions. Scores on the EBTI provide a basis for valid inferences regarding mental health clinicians' intentions to adopt EBTs. Discussion focuses on research and practice applications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 10 17%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Researcher 5 9%
Professor 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 17 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,046,311
of 7,672,691 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#375
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,141
of 266,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#21
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,672,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.