Table 6 Level one summary
Class [Citation] | Research Utilization Measure Details | Sample and Setting | Validity Assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Â | Â | 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. |