Assessing attitudes towards evidence-based practice among social workers in Hong Kong

Abstract

Summary Given that professionals’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice is a key to implementing evidence-based practice, considerable attention has been devoted to understanding social workers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice, with interventions to change those attitudes and thereby promote the adoption of evidence-based practice. In the Chinese context, however, neither systematic studies nor interventions have been conducted, in part because of the lack of valid scales to measure such attitudes among Chinese social workers. This study examined the reliability and validity of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale, using data collected from 181 registered social workers in Hong Kong. Findings Confirmative factor analysis found that Chinese social workers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice can be captured by four distinct constructs: (1) intuitive Appeal of evidence-based practice, (2) likelihood of adopting evidence-based practice given Requirements to, (3) Openness to change, and (4) Divergence of usual practice with research-based interventions. Reliability coefficients showed that the subscales and overall scale have good internal consistency reliability. With the demonstrated validity and reliability, scores on the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale indicated that Hong Kong social workers have less positive attitudes towards evidence-based practice, compared to their Western counterparts. Applications This study provides evidence about the potential usefulness of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale for research and practice in the Chinese context. The Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale can be used for studies to uncover remediable barriers to the adoption of evidence-based practice, which may inform the development of tailored evidence-based practice implementation and dissemination strategies in the Chinese context.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.