Skip to main content

Table 6 Level one summary

From: A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare

Class [Citation] Research Utilization Measure Details Sample and Setting Validity Assessment
    Supporting Evidence Comments
Specific Practice Indices [50] Use of 10 specific research practices. Sample practices include:
• IM injection
• Catheter removal
• Sensory information/diagnostic
Each practice was scored on a 3 pt scale: never (1), sometimes (2), always (3) or 'not applicable.' A mean score based on the ten practices was then calculated.
Population: Nurses
Country: Canada
Setting: Hospitals
Content: Measure assessed by an expert panel
Response processes: a pilot test was conducted within a larger survey (of which the research utilization index was one component).
Relations to other variables: correlations with other variables were reported that support theory and prior empirical research (e.g., with supportive climate and infrastructure)
Content: Unknown whether content assessment was on the specific research-based practices, the question pertaining to use that followed each practice, or both. A high quality assessment of content evidence should include both.
General Research Utilization Indices [50] Research use index contains 10 general statements on research use. Sample items include:
• Communicating concerns about the effectiveness of practices to colleagues
• Use of research articles to support questioning practice
• Identification of hospital policies based on research
Each item is scored on a 4-point scale from not at all to always. Item scores are then summed for an index score (10 to 40).
Population: Nurses
Country: Canada
Setting: Hospitals
Content: Measure assessed by a peer panel
Response processes: a pilot test was conducted with the larger survey (of which the research utilization index was one component).
Relations to other variables: Non-significant correlations (as predicted) with other variables (education and valuing research) which support past empirical reviews.
Content: Process or findings of the content assessment not reported.
General Research Utilization Indices [24] Research use index consists of five items focusing on the extent to which respondents participate in research activities. Sample items include:
• Reviewed research literature in an effort to identify new knowledge for use in your practice
• Evaluated a research study to determine its value for practice
Each item is asked with respect to the past year and is scored on a 4-point scale: 0, 1, 2-4, 5 or more times. Mean of the items are then taken as a measure of research utilization.
Population: Nurses
Country: USA
Setting: Hospitals
Content: Development of the research utilization index was based on a set of five rules (See Additional File 4).
Response processes: a small pretest was conducted with the larger survey (of which the research utilization index was one component).
Relations to other variables: Covariance analysis reported. Several variables were shown to be nonsignificant as predicted, for example, professionalism.
 
General Research Utilization Indices [36] Research use index consists of 18 items measuring respondents' reported participation in nursing research utilization activities. Sample items include:
• I read nursing research articles and learn about research-based nursing interventions.
• I attend conferences/educational programs and learn about research-based nursing interventions
Each item is scored on a 5-point scale from never to always. Item scores are then summed for an index score (18 to 90).
Population: Nurses
Country: USA
Setting: Hospitals
Content: A panel of four experts on research use by nurses assessed the index. Reasons for selecting each panel member were reported, illustrating the appropriateness of the panel selection.
Internal structure: Factor analysis was conducted; findings revealed a 3-factor solution.
Relations to other variables: A significant association between specialty (working in critical care settings) and research use was reported (as predicted).
Content: Findings from the content assessment were not reported.
Internal structure: The 18 items were combined to compute one derived research utilization score (but factor analysis revealed three factors and thus supported deriving three scores and not one score).
Other Single-Items [51] Five single items asking respondents (decision-makers) whether they have used five specific systematic reviews in the past two years to make a program-related decision.
All five items are scored as yes or no. Each item is analyzed as an individual item.
Population: Decision-Makers
Country: Canada
Setting: Community
Content: The research utilization item, which was a component of a larger survey, was developed based on a review of research utilization literature, suggesting content validity evidence.
Response processes: a pilot test was conducted with the larger survey (of which the research utilization item was one component).
Relations to other variables: correlations with other variables, for example, perception that the systematic reviews are easy to use.
All applicable sources of validity evidence reported
Other Single-Items [52] A single item asking respondents whether they have applied research to their practice.
Scored on a 4-point Likert scale: never, rarely, sometimes, always
Population: Allied Health Professionals
Country: Canada
Setting: Variety of settings
Content: An expert panel assessed the research utilization item, which was a component of a larger survey.
Response processes: A pilot test was conducted with the larger survey (of which the research utilization item was one component).
Relations to other variables: a significant association with attitude towards research (as predicted).
All applicable sources of validity evidence reported.
Content: The composition of the panel, process undertaken, or related findings were not reported.